picking up as a post modern fag end...
Resolution of many types of name is inherently ambiguous because the context varies.. We cannot resolve a barcode on a physical object like a can of beans. But we can ask for information on the can of beans and we can order an instance of the can of beans for delivery. And both forms of 'location' are going to be subjective and depend on the context in which they are attempted.
I suppose the question is can a schema capture both identifier and locator contexts (my plural) unambiguously in all cases?
Should I take your post modernist interpretation as saying the answer is no - we have to live with ambiguity, even to the extent of the failure to resolve one or other or possibly both and do so without breaking wind?
But given this interpretation what language is needed if URI and
URN linguistically don't meet the need?
Or is the other interpretation to offer a list of contexts that
work and exclude application for the others?
In which case which is the more useful approach for building real world apps and their networks?
It rather kills the idea of hard coded registries for all
eventualities I think. That I like. As I really like the import of
post modernist sensibility. This argument is worth something.
best Christian
