Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The problem is one of the RFC itself. It the definition of the URI as used in RDF and in The Traditional Web both refer to the same RFC and that RFC uses a model with a semantic of resource/representation, then there is a conflict. If the RFC is rewritten to discard that and provide only the properties of syntax and uniqueness, then all parties can return to their own corners and do the right thing in their own universe. The identifier only needs to be uniform, not universal (across models). Otherwise, the way to proceed is to teach implementors to ignore that part of the RFC which is not applicable to the task at hand. "Dare to do less" means "operate in your own universe". len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] "URLs are useful as a way of generating unique identifers" is a nice trick even without all the stuff (that some of us seem to consider voodoo) about abstract resources and representations thereof. It seems to me that it's the *uniqueness* of URIs that leads to most of their power, both as locators and identifiers, and I'm not at all convinced that the uniqueness property depends on the resources/respresentation abstraction. Clearly there are some very powerful ideas underlying the success of the Web, and URLs/URIs are clearly one of the key principles. I simply think there's a lot of room for alternative theories of exactly why that is. The resource/representation paradigm is clearly one of them and must be taken seriously, but not IMHO treated as axiomatic. I'm sure we would best serve humanity by agreeing to disagree on this rather than abuse yet another mailing list with the debate :-)
|
