- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:02:59 -0400
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: <ogbujic@ccf.org>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>
> From: Bijan Parsia > > On 9 Aug 2007, at 10:32, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > > [ . . . ] > > What kind of difference does it > > make to an agent for the following two resources. > > a) http://404/a/b/c - returns a 404 > > b) lsid:404:a:b:c - non-dereferenciable > > Clearly it marks a difference in intent. It allows me, the term > coiner, to communicate the fact that I don't intend for you to find > information directly by GETting that uri [ . . . ] If you never intend to make your URI dereferenceable then there certainly is no point in making it an http URI. You might as well use a non-dereferenceable URN. However, the purpose of this discussion is to come up with community recommendations on minting URIs. As such: - They will be recommendations, not requirements. - They should be designed to best benefit the community as a whole. It seems clear that any such recommendations should be designed to best facilitate the publication and re-use of URIs by others, and making URIs dereferenceable to useful metadata is certainly one convenient way to help do so. In short, I think your example has nicely illustrated the fact that a particular URI owner could still have good (or bad) reasons *not* to make its URIs dereferenceable, and hence may choose to use URNs. That is its prerogative. But that does not mean that our *recommendations* should encourage such practice. 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 Saturday, 18 August 2007 03:06:49 UTC