- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 01:12:39 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>, "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
[Subject was RE: IDs + 5; everybody - 10] A belated comment, since this thread occurred while I was away on vacation: In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2007Jul/0203.h tml > From: Jonathan Rees > [ . . . ] > My opinion is that if you want to avoid the locator suggestion > entirely, go the route of handles and use names for authorities that > don't look at all like domain names. There is no such thing as a clear distinction between a locator and an identifier. Any identifier can be used as a locator and vice versa. It's just a question of what software you have to use to make it act like a locator. With non-URI identifiers you have to paste the identifier into a special piece of software from the outset, to locate useful information about it. Whereas with HTTP URIs, you *might* get useful information if you paste the URI into a browser. But if you don't, you can still resort to pasting the URI into a special piece of software. It is much better to educate people about the fact that an HTTP URI can act both as a locator and an identifier than to assume that this education will not occur and attempt to impose an artificial distinction between them. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 05:12:58 UTC