Name Uniqueness Problem - Can OpenID solve it?

[Gabe Wachob]

This is good stuff, Joaquin, but it seems to be at odds with the use of term
"identifier" in the URI/web context.

 

Any string that conforms to the URI syntax (RFC 3986) is defined as a URI (a
type of identifier). There's no need for that URI to refer to exactly one
entity. The URI exists simply by minting it (writing it down). Thus, I don't
see how that aligns with the statement (summarizing your summary) that an
identifier is a name in a context that "refers" (what does *THAT* mean) to a
single entity. 

 

            -Gabe

 

It means that there are no identifiers except in relation to a naming
context.  With respect to a given naming context, an identifier is a name
for a single entity.  If, in a given naming context, a name refers to two or
more entities, that name is not an identifier.

Cordially, Joaquin


I feel it would be a waste of our time, but if challenged I can quickly
demonstrate that there is no such thing as an identifier that is unique.  My
point about 'unique identifier' is that it muddles the conversation and sows
confusion.  But another point is this: It's not useful to call an identifier
that is not unique a 'unique identifier'.  




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20060920/074a111c/attachment-0002.htm>