You're mixing up "public" with "published" (intentionally, perhaps). > I am disputing that you are interpreting the definition correctly. And I question whet

You're mixing up "public" with "published" (intentionally, perhaps). > I am disputing that you are interpreting the definition correctly. And I question whether you've actually made an attempt to grok the subject as a matter of definition, rather than substituting your synthesis (based on an experiential mental model of the subject derived from firsthand inference) in place of what URLs actually are actually supposed to be. (Meaning the playing dumb comment would be apropos here as well.) > Can you explain, clearly, how this URL would end up catalogued? The mechanics of how don't have to be explained, because that's how definitions work (whether you accept it or not). Explaining how is not a pre-requisite to what. But if you're really dying for some missing insight, how about pausing to demonstrate some awareness of the catalyst of this tedious exchange: that a company that was founded on the basis related to cataloguing documents and their public identifiers is (shocker) doing that, right before doing things to/with them—and this has led to people who built up a model of the world similar to yours getting upset because the mistaken assumptions that went into building that model conflict with they're now being told is happening.