Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>That's the critical observation for this and many other
>threads that rely on ontological commitment to sustain
>Would anyone care to compare that to URIs as a unit of
Personally, I go with the definition of Resource and Resource Identifier
provided by Roy:
as soon as I had started doing that, all the confusion suddenly ended
and I have never ever had any problems with that decision. I believe
that a technology itself gets to define what their 'elements' are and
not whoever uses the technology.
A nice example of this is XTM (Topic Maps applied to XML/Web) which
implicitly makes the assumption that URIs allways identify Documents
(aka 'addressable subjects') and NEVER!! abstract concepts (aka
'non-addressable subjects'). How can a technology (Topic Maps) that
*uses* terms and infrastructure of another technology re-define the
terms? Makes no sense to me.
>1. Is a URI a resource?
>2. If it is a resource, what operations are significant?
>3. Are URIs ever ambiguous?
Do you mean: "Can URIs ever be used ambiguous?" ??
The string itself cannot really 'be ambigous', I'd say.
>Yes, I know: the permathread from hell.
So much fun :o)
>From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>The writer makes choices, but a reader cannot always tell which of those
>choices (if any) convey some semantics in the intentions of the writer and
>which do not. In other words, an XML document may contain more information
>than the writer considers significant, but a given reader may not be able to
>separate the non-significant part from the significant part.
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
Consultant & Programmer