Re: identifier to use

Phillip Lord wrote:
> I don't understand the desire to implement everything using HTTP.

Likewise, I don't understand the desire to implement everything using 
anything but HTTP :-) If there is an existing system that is (incredibly) 
widely adopted and that can be built upon, surely that's the way to go?


> Why call
> lots of things, which are actually several protocols by a name which suggests
> that they are all one. How to distinguish between an HTTP URI which allows you
> to do location independent, two step resolution and one which doesn't. Well,
> one solution would be, perhaps, to call it something different, say, perhaps,
> LSID? 

You could have the concept of LS HTTP URIs that follow certain conventions, 
may be useful for some, but I don't quite see the problem with the fact 
that you will be able to resolve some HTTP URIs, but not others: The only 
way to know whether a URI can be resolved or not, in the end, is to try; 
some systems just seem to make doing so harder...