The issue of how to use URIs to identify abstract or real-world things (as
opposed to network locations) is a very hot topic these days (this week!) at
the W3C. The TAG list is having very heated discussions on this topic.
Specifically, there is a document discussing the ambiguities of using HTTP
urls in different contexts (or rather, any single URI scheme in multiple
contexts).
http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-names_clean.htm
Definitely a fascinating line of thought that dovetails in some ways with
our motivations. Specifically, relative to this document, I think we'd
describe the XRI effort as a "name indicates meaning" approach to
identifying real world resources.
Also see http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-rfc2396-analysis.htm
which reviews rfc2396 (defining URIs) with a similar critical eye (long).
-Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter C Davis [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:19 AM
> To: ''
> Subject: [xri] [Fwd: Re: Clarifying what a URL identifies
> (Four Uses of
> a URL)]
>
>
> This prompts me to raise an issue, which i think is incompletely
> addressed with laisons to other standards bodies:
>
> I think we need formal language (in the requirements draft) which
> ecourages the research into complimentary and conflicting resource
> expression methodologies.
>
> Having said that, todays mention of outside entities questioning the
> need/benefits for this TCs output (which drives clarification in the
> requirements draft), goes a long way to this end. Clear
> articulation of
> the gaps in current resource identifier notations should be
> included in
> the introduction.
>
> The W3C TAG, in particular, is likely to keep a scepticle eye, until
> these shortcommings are well laid out.
>
> --- peterd
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Clarifying what a URL identifies (Four Uses of a URL)
> Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 06:42:20 -0500 (EST)
> Resent-From:
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:17:48 +0000
> From: Graham Klyne <>
> To: Tim Berners-Lee <>
> CC: Sandro Hawke <>,
> References: <>
>
>
> At 10:02 PM 1/22/03 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> >One *can* introduce a new system with a different design
> >and argue its merits. Sandro has designed an alternative
> >system http://www.w3.org/2002/12/rdf-identifiers/
> >which seems consistent and I haven't finished thinking
> >about - there are things I like about it and things I don't.
> >But it does address all the questions, I think.
>
> FWIW, I think Sandro's proposal is consistent with the
> current state of RDF
> specification, and other views of URIs that have been expressed here,
> except maybe the view that http: URIs (without fragments)
> should always
> denote documents (I hope I don't misinterpret). My point of
> divergence
> with that proposal is the suggestion it should be part of the
> RDF core,
> because I don't see the necessity for it to be there.
>
> The formal semantics for RDF does tell us one thing, though:
> in a given
> interpretation of an RDF graph (document, or collection of documents
> considered together), a given URI must always denote the same single
> thing. So we can't have a graph in which a URI sometimes
> denotes a car and
> elsewhere simultaneously denotes a picture.
>
> #g
>
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <>
>
> --
> --- peterd
> Sr Security Architect
> Neustar, Inc. smtp:
> (571) 434 5516 jabber:
>
>
> <Quote type="random">
> The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement.
> <Author>George F. Will</Author>
> </Quote>
>
> PGP Fingerprint:
> 8994 8774 B682 3A04 B304 C4A2 D9DD 7E5B 8AAC 2D00
>
