[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• From: Jan Algermissen <jalgermissen@t...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:37:12 +0200
• Cc: 'Alessandro Triglia' <sandro@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206DC1@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206DC1@h...>
• Reply-to: algermissen@a...
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

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:
>  
>
Personally, I go with the definition of Resource and Resource Identifier 
provided by Roy:

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_2_1_1

as soon as I had started doing that, all the confusion suddenly ended 
and I have never ever had any problems with that decision. I believe 
that a technology itself gets to define what their 'elements' are and 
not whoever uses the technology.

A nice example of this is XTM (Topic Maps applied to XML/Web) which 
implicitly makes the assumption that URIs allways identify Documents 
(aka 'addressable subjects') and NEVER!! abstract concepts (aka 
'non-addressable subjects'). How can a technology (Topic Maps) that 
*uses* terms and infrastructure of another technology re-define the 
terms? Makes no sense to me.

>1.  Is a URI a resource?
>  
>
No.

>2.  If it is a resource, what operations are significant?
>
>3.  Are URIs ever ambiguous?
>
>  
>
Do you mean: "Can URIs ever be used ambiguous?"  ??

The string itself cannot really 'be ambigous', I'd say.

>Yes, I know: the permathread from hell.
>
>  
>
So much fun :o)

Jan



>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.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Jan Algermissen
Consultant & Programmer
http://jalgermissen.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
    • From: Bart Schuller <schuller+xml-dev@l...>

• References:
  • Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Next by Date: Re: The Rising Sun: How XML Binary Restored the Fortunes
• Previous by thread: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Next by thread: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread