- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:43:10 +0100
- To: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, urn@ietf.org
On 10.03.2011 13:28, Juha Hakala wrote: > ... > Persistent identifiers will be used for multiple purposes, and by the > time we assign e.g. a URN to a resource, we have no idea which > resolution services will be needed in the (distant) future. Lifetime of > a PID may be centuries; applications and the functionality they offer > will change many times during such a period. And eventually even the > copyright protection of a document will expire ;-). > ... I think that statement in itself rules out use of fragment identifiers. At least if you want to stay in sync with the URI spec (RFC 3986). > Retrieving a representation is one the key resolution services supplied > already. But there does not need to be a 1:1 relation between a URN (or > any other persistent identifier) and the URI (URL/URLs) it maps to via a > resolution service. > ... Even if there *was* a one-to-one mapping, the representation could still vary based on request header fields (content negotiation), and also over time. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:43:55 UTC