[Mike Brown]
> Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> > A URI is intended to allow you to "identify" something, and that
something
> > does not have to be a retrievable resource. It can be abstract. A URL
is a
> > special case that gives you an identifier that does work for retrieving
an
> > actual resource.
>
> Just to clarify,
>
> 'Retrieval' is the wrong word here. 'Access' is better -- The resource may
be
> too intangible for its representation to be a retrievable entity, and the
> primary access method as implied by the scheme may not even facilitate
> retrieval (or a meaningful response of any kind) at all. For example,
>
I'll go along with you - "access" will do for me. Come to think of it, an
email address is not a URI scheme, is it? It is only the mailto:xxx@yyy
that would a URI.
Cheers,
Tom P
