W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > October 2007

Re: RFC 2616 vs. AWWW

From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:45:18 +0200
Message-ID: <47122B7E.4080909@isb-sib.ch>
To: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> This isn't academic. The Library of Congress trashes the http: scheme
> [1] in the same way that the LSID spec does - they say it's no good
> because URIs are locators (first answer) instead of "identifiers"
> (references; second answer). The justification for using http: for
> literature reference, even in the best of circumstances, has got to be
> better than "trust me" or "it usually works" or "you're being anal".
> 
> [1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/uri/news.html

Note that they "trash" both the URL and the URN scheme for -- unlike the 
"info" scheme -- implying resolvability. In practice, people will know that 
you can resolve an "unresolvable" URI such as info:arxiv/hep-th/9901001 to 
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9901001, so the main difference I guess is that 
with "info" URIs the resolution is non-standard and namespace-specific...
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 14:45:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:50 GMT