- From: Joshua Tauberer <tauberer@for.net>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:20:32 -0400
- To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- CC: Semantic-Web discussion list <semantic-web@w3.org>
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 **
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2005 12:21:31 UTC