[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 7/13/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> It is time to realize that names and identifiers
> and locations are not the same, and where we indulge
> in that 'middle reality', we ignore the very real
> problems they create by pretending to solve problems
> they don't touch. We could think about using URNs
> as non-opaque resources and use URIs only as abstract
> identifiers (in the same way an event boundary has
> area but no volume). However, then we either have
> to admit a URN is NOT a URI or remove the opaqueness
> restriction on URIs, or dump the notion and admit
> that RDDL, catalogs, etc. aren't a nice to have but
> a must have.
>
I'd vote for admitting a URN is not a URI: a rose is a rose is a rose,
but the one growing in my garden isn't the same rose as the one
growing in your garden, and the one that is in bloom today isn't the
same as the one that was blooming last week (paying homage to your
black hole analogies by adding time into the "location" mix).
Uh:
http://somecompany.com/somepersons:grandiflora:gold-medal:20050713
anyone??
--
Peter Hunsberger
(Wondering how many comments he'll get about the "name" not being
fully qualified).
|
