[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> > A URzed is always dereferenceable. If we accept that, then
>
> We don't. There is no supporting de jure evidence for this proposition,
> and many counterexamples that one encounters daily. Thus the rest of
> your arguments are uninteresting until they find some base in the real
> world. I suspect I may agree with the conclusion you're heading
> towards, but you'll have to find another way to get there. -Tim
Well to me, it depends on what the meaning of "dereferencable" is. I'm happy
to concede to Len's insistence that a UR* is always dereferencable. After
all, if one puts up a catalog or index that takes a URN and spits out a usable
resource in some way, you've "dereferenced" it.
Of course, this isn't terribly useful as a basis for examining the
architectural issues because any string is thus dereferenceable, including,
say, an FPI.
I'm not sure Schrödinger is such a great backdrop for this conversation. The
planck constant is just not big enough to figure into the politics of
identifiers.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/li
brary/x-think11.html
|
