Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
Wow, talk about trolling! ;-} How about we back up to: why do we care? It's those damn namespaces. Suppose there were no namespaces. Suppose instead of namespaces, there were only globally unique names. Because it's simpler to use an authority than to pretend we can calculate a globally unique name, suppose we use inverted domain names. That is, for a registered domain "x.y", its globally unique names are constructed with the prefix "y.x". Then we might have "com.intergraph.bullard.len" as a globally unique name. End of story. No namespaces. Nobody ever asks if "com.intergraph" is a "resource", whatever that is, because it's patently obvious it isn't. We don't need namespaces and never did. Imagine how many person-hours would have been saved if we didn't have them. ;-} Bob Foster Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > That's the critical observation for this and many other > threads that rely on ontological commitment to sustain > communications. > > Would anyone care to compare that to URIs as a unit of > information: > > 1. Is a URI a resource? > > 2. If it is a resource, what operations are significant? > > 3. Are URIs ever ambiguous? > > Yes, I know: the permathread from hell. > > len > > From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@m...] > > The writer makes choices, but a reader cannot always tell which of those > choices (if any) convey some semantics in the intentions of the writer and > which do not. In other words, an XML document may contain more information > than the writer considers significant, but a given reader may not be able to > separate the non-significant part from the significant part.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format