• To: gtn@r... (Gavin Thomas Nicol)
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:22:32 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <E16b1tq-0000Id-00@s...> from "Gavin Thomas Nicol" at Feb 13, 2002 10:43:48 AM

> I hope you see the point here though.... there is *no* reliable way to 
> send a URI to a specific resource representation as the web would 
> exist in a world of purely abstract URI's. To my mind, that is BAD 
> (Broken As Designed). Abstract URI's are a powerful thing, but they 
> shouldn't/cannot be the *only* thing.... (maybe that's why we used to 
> have URL, URI, URN?)

If I understand you correctly, I'd disagree.  It is a *good* thing that
I control my own namespace.  If I have good reason not to let you
identify a particular representation, then that's *my* decision, and you
shouldn't be able to override that.

It's a feature, not a bug. 8-)

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@p...
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Service discovery
• Next by Date: RE: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread