- From: Sean Reilly <sreilly@cnri.reston.va.us>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:39:22 +0000
- To: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
- Cc: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>, "'Erik Wilde'" <dret@berkeley.edu>, uri@w3.org
On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: > But, more practically, there's a conceptual difference between > "the location 52d17'N 0d03'E" and "a web page from <X> about the > location > 52d17'N 0d03'E". There's an accepted way to represent concepts: > URNs. To my > mind, there should be: > > urn:location:wg84:+5217,+00003 (or whatever encoding gets used) > urn:location:osgb:TL4652 +N (where N is however many votes I can afford to buy) In response to the location.org/slurl.com conversation: No matter what organization is responsible for location.org, it is likely that they will not continue to exist forever. Putting that domain into a geoloc URI specification essentially mandates that anyone looking for a location do so through location.org, at least until browsers are designed so that location.org URLs bypass the http pipeline altogether (which is quite a large assumption). Remember when verisign/netsol started redirecting all unregistered domain lookups to their own search/advertisement site? It would be nice to avoid enabling another similar situation. Second, how does one verify the authority of a specification declaring location.org (or any other domain) to forever and always have a certain meaning? Even if you verify that the spec author is the current owner of location.org there's no way that I know of to prove that they will always have the right to determine how that domain is used (or bypassed) for eternity. The urn: or even info: URI options are the most elegant (urn if you want resolution, info if not). Piggy-backing http: in this case is the easiest short term approach, but is definitely a kludge. Thanks, Sean
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 14:42:47 UTC