Lists Home |
Date Index |
John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Jonathan Borden, or the avatar of him at
> > A URI is simply a name for a thing, whatever that
thing may be.
> Anyhow, I too now have a URI:
Properly this is a URI reference.
Particularly concerning REST and URIs: Roy Fielding's
thesis says this:
REST accomplishes this by defining a resource to be the
semantics of what the
author intends to identify ...
Defining resource such that a URI identifies a concept
rather than a document
so while you are (I assume) the authority on the type of
the resource identified
and you are free to assert that it identifies a
hypertext document, there is
nothing that mandates this. Indeed you are also free to
assert that this URI represents _you_ if you so choose.
Just as I may assert the semantics of the
resource identified by:
> > URIs are names. The point being made is that what
they name is NOT the
> > literal series of characters returned by a GET,
rather the URI names a
> > _resource_ which might be anything thing that has a
name. What is
> > returned by a GET is simply a description of the
> > (other wording is a 'representation of the
> Again, fair enough. But the use of "description" is
an equivoque: the
> HTML you can GET from http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/ is a
> of a certain resource of type "hyperdocument". It is
> representation of another resource of type "Homo
sapiens". It does not
> even, as it happens, very well describe that Homo
Right, but again if you so chose, the GET actually could
describe, or return a representation of, "Homo sapiens".
The point is that URIs leverage the global naming and
registration system to allow people to create URIs and
define what these URIs represent.
> > URIs are names.
> The point is that names, to be truly useful, should
not refer to
> distinct referents. It is nothing but a nuisance
> Carter" might refer to either a mathematician at UCLA
or a former
> president of the United States.
What URIs bring to naming is an _attempt_ to be unique,
yet fundamentally URIs are only unique with respect to a
single point in time, and over time their meaning might
change. Oh well.
The fact is, everything changes over time, even the
meaning of strings such as "1 + 1 = 2". Perhaps not
optimal, not perfect, but it is the universe we exist in.
> > Jonathan (note new email address -- which refers to
the same person as
> > email@example.com)
> Your two email addresses *refer* to distinct
mailboxes: it is not all
> one (at least eventually, if not immediately) whether
I send mail to
> firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com.
> They are *associated*, using any of a variety of
> as "mailboxOf", "ownedBy", or "subjectIndicatorOf",
> yourself, Jonathan Borden. What the URI of Jonathan
> might be, we do not yet know. If a topic for you
appeared in some topic
> map, then we would have a URI for you (an XPointer
> topic map) and a criterion for determining if other
> also refer to you.
in predicate logic:
for all ?person such that
name(?person, "Jonathan Borden")
(one can choose from among several syntaxes for
representing the same formula)
Considering that such logics have been around and well
characterized for many decades, I am not sure what topic
maps bring to the table. I do think that I need
something like a topic map to see how these concepts
relate between TM, RDF, FOPL etc. The term "subject" is
in grave danger of becoming as overloaded as "resource"