Re: Relational URI (was: Re: Relational Calculus URIs?)

Laconic2 et al:

> So, if there were such a thing as URI, what would it be?
There *IS* such a thing as `URI'. It is a standard internet term.

> How about "Uniform Resource Identifier"?
That is exactly correct.

> The trouble with URL is that it's an address. Basically, a pointer.
And
> when a resource moves from one "location" to another, all the pointers
to
> the old location get left behind, and invalidated.
I was thinking purely in terms of connection strings. Currently you might be connecting to your database with an OLEDB connection string with your VB application, and with yet another different connection string from your Perl app, et cetera. It would be most advantageous if there were a single uniform connection string for all applications.

> Worse, when a resource gets replaced by a different resource, with a
> different identity, but the same location, the pointer acts like it's
still
> valid, although it actually should not be.
This would be Simply Wrong when it came to tuples. A very Bad Idea indeed.

> If we had URI's we could be begin to build the "world wide objects"
instead
> of the "world wide web".
It would make things easier.

> I'd better shut up before Dawn catches me writing this!
So just ignore her.

I must again everyone I'm just stepping out on an implementation limb which is rather off-topic here, but the benefit above I consider self-evident.

Sheepishly Exploring,
Timothy J. Bruce
uniblab_at_hotmail.com
</RANT> Received on Wed Apr 21 2004 - 21:47:52 CEST