[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: URI concerns continue
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > It seems like the W3C is pushing hard to use URIs to identify everything > possible, without giving much concern to the difficult questions that have > bedeviled the xml-uri list for the past two months. While the URI > community seems happy to have identifiers that are processed using a wide > variety of different rules, I'm not sure that approach is acceptable for > XML processing. (It could become acceptable were URI processing and > comparison, at least in an XML context, defined more clearly and explicitly.) > > While I welcome the effort to reuse existing parts, and could be persuaded > that URIs are a good answer to all of these problems, I don't think that > URIs are anywhere near mature or specified enough to carry the burdens that > various XML specifications are placing on them. There is no reason to > expect URI processing to be as predictable as XML processing (even with the > many possibilities in XML processing), and I'm very worried that URIs are a > threat to XML processing in the absence of constraints that would make URI > processing and usage predictable. I think that one of the problems here is that we've got a "terminological hijack" going on, similar to the one I mentioned a while back (though I'm not sure whether on xml-dev, xml-uri, or both) involving the American and British uses of the phrase "learning disabilities." In the decade or so that URIs (almost entirely in the form of URLs) have been in use, they've been the identifiers (in reality, addresses) of *concrete* things, namely entity bodies, and a generation of developers and users have built a mental model of URIs based on this use. But it's plain that the W3C's vision of URIs is heavily based on using them to name *abstractions*, and that a good part of the URI community is having a hard time fitting this into their mental models. I'm starting to wonder whether overloading the notion of a URI (particularly in the URL form) to encompass both addressing sequences of bits and identifying abstract statements in a form of higher-order-logic is really a good idea. Maybe the distinction between floor waxes and dessert toppings actually serves a useful purpose in practice if not in theory and shouldn't be blurred solely in the name of mathematical elegance. Imagine a programming language in which all arithmetic had to be done in terms of set-theoretic primitives. It would be extremely elegant, but not very useful. In particular, I have a really hard time with the use of a retrieval-protocol component (like http or ftp) in something that's supposed to name an abstraction rather than specify how to retrieve something concrete. I'd be a lot happier if we were to reserve URLs for naming concrete things and keep the names of abstract things to a subset of URNs or to some sort of public identifier. To do otherwise is, IMHO, to invite a great deal of map-territory confusion, and to leave people wondering whether particular maps actually correspond to any territory.
|
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
|