On 10/21/11 10:53 AM, David Booth wrote:
Right, though I would call it an application issue rather than an interoperability issue, because whether or not it is important to distinguish the two depends entirely on the application. Ambiguity/unambiguity should not be viewed as an absolute, but as *relative* to a particular application or class of applications: a URI that is completely unambiguous to one application may be hopelessly ambiguous to a different application that requires finer distinctions. See "Resource Identity and Semantic Extensions: Making Sense of Ambiguity" http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html
+1
Examples of different applications/services where the above applies: 1. World Wide Web -- as a global information space. 2. World Wide Web -- as a global data space. 3. World Wide Web -- as a global knowledge space.httpRange-14 enables Web users straddle the items above without consequence. The hyperlink is still the driver of application experience.
> > The question of how many URIs you need has almost nothing to do with> httpRange-14. It would arise no matter how you ended up choosing > between direct vs. indirect.+1. With or without httpRange-14, there will always be URIs that are unambiguous to some applications and ambiguous to others. This is the inescapable consequence of the fact that, for the most part, it is impossible to define anything completely unambiguously -- a principle well discussed and established in philosophy.
+1 -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
