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

RE: Comparable considered necessary

• To: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@b...>
• Subject: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:20:07 -0700
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcJBTil6j3NFzWMdRH2DBi2C3C+rpQAg9kGAAAAokigAAFFvcAABHHsN
• Thread-topic: Comparable considered necessary

You miss the point. An identifier is not a location. 
 
I could quite easily come up with two schemas, one with a target namespace of http://www.25hoursaday.com that describes myself as a GA Tech alumni and http://WWW.25hoursaday.COM which describes my CD collection. Now there is no question that both of these URLs refer to the same location on the web yet  neither is there any question that they identify different things. 
 
PS: Case insensitivity is a red herring. The example could easily use URL escaping or raw IP vs. domain name. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Manos Batsis [mailto:m.batsis@b...] 
	Sent: Mon 8/12/2002 1:04 AM 
	To: Dare Obasanjo 
	Cc: xml-dev@l... 
	Subject: RE:  Comparable considered necessary
	
	



	> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]
	
	> Quick question: If http://WWW.25hoursaday.COM and
	http://www.25hoursaday.com can represent two distinct
	> and totally different namespaces in XML, how can
	> they then both identify the same resource?
	
	Perhaps this is a naïve view for some but for me it's clearly practical; I need to use retrievable resources (after all, it's the web for a reason) and distinctions based on case sensitivity are bound to cause me trouble. Hell it's bound to cause me trouble even if the resources are non-retrievable.
	
	
	> Now as URLs using the HTTP scheme that are resolved
	> by DNS, the same document should be retrieved over the network
	> via each one but this is not the same thing.
	
	Although I can only agree, URIs resolved by DNS (or something similar in the future) are probably the most important part of URIs. It's early misuse by namespaces and things like case sensitivity makes a very good idea bound to be unstable in the future and much dependent in "best practices". I mean, we better tell all our developers to type URIs in lower case from now on; otherwise, the semantic web will need to do queries for a resource using enumerations of all the possible combinations of casing to get all the available meta for it etc....
	
	This can be hidden internally within an app, but I don't like this internal representation of different resources just because of an atopon legasy being a habit (inherited by PLs).Isn't this bad architecture?
	
	Part 6 of rfc2396, (URI Normalization and Equivalence), just says "In many cases, different URI strings may actually identify the identical resource.". Heh.
	
	Regards,
	
	Manos
	
	
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Manos Batsis [mailto:m.batsis@b...]
	Sent: Mon 8/12/2002 12:33 AM
	To: Joe English; Simon St.Laurent
	Cc: xml-dev@l...
	Subject: RE:  Comparable considered necessary
	
	
	        > -----Original Message-----
	        > From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...]
	       
	        > "Are X and Y the same URI?" is answerable.  "Do X and Y identify
	        > the same resource?" is not.
	       
	        If the resource is retrievable, it should be the same, otherwise we have
	        a huge problem. What is missing from the puzzle today is a clean
	        separation of retrievable VS non-retrievable resources, with namespaces
	        being the greatest example...
	       
	        Manos
	       
	       
	       
	        -----------------------------------------------------------------
	        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://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
	       
	       
	
	

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • RE: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• Prev by Date: rng 2 xmi
• Next by Date: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Previous by thread: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread