- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:20:21 -0000
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> Yes, this is generally regarded as a bug with URNs; that they don't > use the hierarchical capabilities of the generic URI syntax to denote > hierarchy. I personally don't think it's worth introducing a lot of > complexity to accomodate a broken and little-used (not to mention > non-dereferencable) URI scheme, and so would personally opt for option > "a". YMMV, of course. > I personally don't think that a name or identity has to be dereferencable. The Life Sciences and Astronomy communities use URNs to uniquely identify resources/entities without the need to dereference them. They require an indirection from a globally unique name to a protocol-specific address and I think this is better than being coupled with a specific protocol technology. But we are going off-topic :-) Regards, .savas.
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 22:20:55 UTC