Re: Accessible representations are compatible with "tag" and "urn" schemes

Etan Wexler wrote:
> Joshua Tauberer wrote to the Semantic-Web discussion list:
>> The whole point of tag: and urn: is to have a system of creating 
>> identifiers for things that have no representation on the web.
> 
> This is not so. Resources that “tag” and “urn” URIs identify may have
> representations accessible on the Web.

Sure, and that has nothing to do with what I said. :) Of course a tag: 
URI can be given to something that has a representation on the web.  But 
when I want to identify something that has no representation on the web, 
or no authoratative representation (e.g. urn:isbn:), or I simply don't 
want to conflate the thing with a website, it's nice to have alternate 
schemes available.

I really don't see why this even needs such a debate.  Provided we're 
all following the same specs (RDF, RDFS, etc.) that don't mention 
anything about dereferencing URIs (aside from the weird rdfs:seeAlso, 
but that's besides the point here), there's just no reason why someone 
minting a URI shouldn't choose whichever scheme he feels like.  It has 
no bearing at all on the technical/formal side of things.

-- 
- Joshua Tauberer

http://taubz.for.net

** Nothing Unreal Exists **