Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In practice, this sort of mostly works, but I think the URI folks are also pretty insistent on Uniform (as in syntax) rather than Universal (as in semantics) for their identifiers. There are certainly a number of ways that URIs don't reliably always give the exact same result, even at an abstract resource level. (I thought it was Universal for a long while, before spending too much time in the URI Zen Zone.) joshuaa@m... (Joshua Allen) writes: >> Those who said that Tim's work was "trivial", or "not-new" or >> "didn't solve interesting problems" were right. But those who said it > >Did "memex" have the concept of universal identifiers? I know that >some of the other hypermedia systems at the time permitted linking to >a common global id, but it was cumbersome and not the "normal" way of >doing links. The WWW is still lagging functionality of many of those >hypermedia systems, but the fact that using "universal" identifiers >was the "standard" way of identifying targets was at least as >important as having a killer app IMO. I think that the URI, not the >hyperlink, is the fundamental innovation of the WWW -- and in fact the >true potential of the web lies with use of URIs beyond hypermedia. > >(And by "universal", I mean you have a string identifier that is going >to give the exact same result no matter whether called by a user on a >workstation in Singapore or a user at CERN.)
|
