- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:12:40 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, ogbujic@ccf.org, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > I don't really see why HTTP uris are preferred, even as a default. I think the argument is really simple: 1. If you do not want to dereference, I don't see why you would care whether a URI is a URL or a URN or whatnot -- as long as it is unique. 2. The most practical solution to the uniqueness problem is to build on top of an established registration system such as the domain name system. If you think you can come up with something better that's going to be accepted as widely, that's great, but forgive me for not holding my breath... 3. If you do want to dereference, and do so with a generic tool that wasn't specially written to handle life sciences data (most won't), you are likely to be out of luck if you encounter some domain-specific resolution system. If the W3C can encourage life science databases to provide stable URLs (which is simple enough that it shouldn't be a technical problem for any of them, don't even need to buy into any of the semantic web stuff to see that this is useful), this would already make the world a better place (TM). (The more cynical point of view would be that people are not influenced by such recommendations, in which case this discussion is rather pointless :-)
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 09:13:05 UTC