On 11/11/10 12:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
All,
Type fixes
As the conversation about HTTP responses evolves, I am inclined to
believe that most still believe that:
1. URL is equivalent to a URI
2. URI is a fancier term for URI
3. URI is equivalent to URL.
1. URL is equivalent to a URI
2. URI is a fancier term for URL
3. URI is equivalent to URL.
I think my opinion on this matter is clear, but I am very interested
in the views of anyone that don't agree with the following:
1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that work at InterWeb scale
2. A URI can serve as a Name
3. A URI can serve as an Address
4. A Name != Address
5. We locate Data at Addresses
6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses i.e., Names
can Resolve to Data.
1. URI is an abstraction for Identifiers that works at InterWeb scale
2. A URI can serve as a Name
3. A URI can serve as an Address (URL)
4. An Address (URL) can *serve* as a Name
4. A Name != Address (URL)
5. We locate Data at Addresses (URLs)
6. Names can be used to provide indirection to Addresses (URLs) i.e.,
Names can Resolve to Data.
Hopefully, if we sort this out, we have one less point of confusion to
address i.e. that overloaded term: Resource.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
