Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 10/20/11 2:38 AM, Michael Smethurst wrote:
name = generic information resource urblah
You assign names to data objects. A data object is an encapsulation of
data that can be simple of complex. In all cases data objects are
accessible via addresses. In all cases, you access a data object via
act of de-reference (irrespective of levels of indirection).
address = specific representation url (exposed in content location
headers and rel="alternate" < forgot that bit earlier)
address (a URL) = how you get at the data, basically, data object access
is the prime function. That isn't necessarily the case if you use a URL
as a generic name i.e., one doesn't assume data object access, you can
only assume data object identification.
The intuition challenge here is that URLs are being perceived as being
indistinguishable from URIs at both the functional and conceptual
levels. A URL being a kind of URI implies they are related but not
identical. Thus, using URLs as data object names is quite *unintuitive*
but extremely *ingenious*, especially in the context of the World Wide Web.
Trying to follow, can you confirm:
URL = Absolute / non-frag URI?
URI = URI-with-frag?
And you're suggesting that we do not name things, rather we name data
objects (each data object "represents"/"describes" a thing), and since
they are data objects we can name them with either a URL or a URI, the
only distinction being that when naming with a URL (and no redirect) you
can only provide a serialization of one data object in response to a
lookup on an address (URL), whereas with a URI you can can provide a
serialization of several data objects (since URI contains a URL).
Or are you saying that a URL = an address and a URI = a name, and a
single URI is not (or cannot be both) a name and an address?
Or, are you saying that we can use a single URL/URI as both a name and
an address (which afaict, everybody already does).
Best,
Nathan
