[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: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 16 Feb 2002 13:22:27 -0500
• Cc: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <3C6E905E.3E8A705@p...>
• References: <B892A842.E7FE%patrick.stickler@n...> <3C6D4AA4.D436E345@p...><1013801882.948.34.camel@l...> <3C6E868B.7C4C4B79@p...><1013882059.947.57.camel@l...> <3C6E905E.3E8A705@p...>

On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 12:01, Paul Prescod wrote:
> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> > URLs are genuinely successful.  The scheme: approach was a good idea.
> > However, I don't think any strong case can be made that URIs are genuine
> > contributors to the success of that information system, except to the
> > extent that they overlap with URLs - and, in many ways, damage the
> > usefulness of URLs.
> 
> I don't really distinguish between URIs and URLs for two reasons:
> 
>  1. I don't want to get into a philisophical debate on the distinction.
> 
>  2. Almost all of the URIs I see are actually URLs.
> 
> When I say that URIs are great I don't mean as opposed to URLs, I mean
> including URLs.

And I'm saying that I find your claims inappropriate.  The problems and
discussions we have on a regular basis with URIs are not problems with
URLs.  They are additional ugly problems brought on by the philosophical
freight URIs carry.

I see little evidence that URIs - beyond URLs - have contributed much
good to the developing universe.

> People SHOULD treat URLs (even HTTP) ones more like *identifiers* rather
> than *locators* in the sense that you should think of the identifier as
> being welded to the resource and not just a convenient way of finding it
> on the network. 

And I disagree to the extent that the *identifiers* contract varies from
the expectations already built into pretty much every piece of Web
software regarding the *locations* contract.

And resources?  What?  Entities at least have electronic substance.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Next by Date: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Next by thread: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread