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

Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs

• To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:46:07 -0800
• References: <B89172AB.E5DE%patrick.stickler@n...>

Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> But is not the representation of a resource a resource? 

No, not according to the way those terms are used on the Web.

> ... How
> do we then refer to both "the Eiffel Tower" and a "description
> of the Eiffel Tower" if they have the same URI.

If the description is important enough to be its own resource then it
could get a new URI.

If you really, really want to reify ALL representations in one fell
swoop then you could do that at the RDF or topic map level.

>...
> The resource has a URI. Each representation of the resource
> is also a resource and has a different URI, etc.

If a "representation" is a "resource" then you are not using the word
representation in the HTTP/URI sense. But that representation (in your
sense) can have a representation (in the HTTP/URI sense) that you GET by
dereferencing its URI (which must be distinct from the original
resource's URI).

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by Date: Re: Architectural Forms, A Summary
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Two Perspectives (was Re: URIs are simply names R)
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread