• To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:23:36 -0500
• Cc: ext Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <B89172AB.E5DE%patrick.stickler@n...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

Patrick Stickler wrote:


> But is not the representation of a resource a resource? How
> do we then refer to both "the Eiffel Tower" and a "description
> of the Eiffel Tower" if they have the same URI.


Exactly my point throughout this thread.

 
> If a URI can name everything, then every thing should have
> its own URI, if it is thus named.

Yes.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

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

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Hook Stuff Together
• Next by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• 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