RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

If the name was the thing, I might be persuaded, 
but it seems the name follows the application. 

I don't think a protocol spec followed by a 
path is much of an identifier until it is 
married to a domain octet somewhere.  Yes, 
I read the specs.  I consider them a sort 
of adaptive justification.  It was a handy 
thing to do and works in the niche.  A system 
ID invaded the information domain.  If it 
turns blue and is clickable, it's a control, 
not an identifier.

Of course, hidden in a structure where I 
can't click on it, it can be whatever that 
structure allows.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]

>     URIs aren't designed to 
> be namespace identifiers per se.  They are co-opted into 
> that as a side effect of their uniqueness.  

If that "I" in "URI" didn't signify "Identifier", I might be
tempted to agree, but as it is ... I can only hope that
you mean to say that using identifiers to denote one
kind of thing ("namespace") is as arbitrary a choice as
using them to denote another ("person", "location",
and so on).

Identifiers are void of meaning.  Meaning comes from
the context in which they're interpreted.  Much confusion
came from assuming that the only context in which
URIs would be used is a "fetch contents" operation,
despite specifications clearly stating otherwise.