Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Bottom line: a URL, like any other kind of character string, does not
> identify any subject "per se", but can be used as an identifier if you
> provide a clear and unambiguous identification process. And since
> process can be different, the same string can be used different ways to
> identify different things. This is not specific to URLs, it is the same
> with whatever naming or identification system. "2003-01-24" is only a
> character string, and it does not "per se" identify the current day, out
> of context.
>
Yes, I agree with your conclusion. Also, reading the mind (map) of
David Booth
(http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-rfc2396-analysis_clean.htm),
reminds me of the recent debate of WHAT exactly the URI identifies
(dirived through context, right? but wait...).
Specifically
http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-rfc2396-analysis_clean.htm#question5
which (correctly) concludes that a URI can identify not only thing1 and
thing2, but the binding (mapping) which relates thing1 TO thing2
(perhaps they are brothers :-). Leaving us with three identifiers for
two subjects!
I think that topic maps CAN express this, but i am presently less
educated on the subject than i would like to be...(note to self).
-- peterd
