- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:33:51 +0100
- To: "'Joshua Allen'" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "'Murray Spork'" <m.spork@qut.edu.au>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joshua > Allen > > If so, then I completely agree with you. The only part I am > adding is: > > 5) People SHOULD NOT use http: URIs to refer to things like cars > 6) If they do, there is no guarantee that their metadata will > be able to participate in the semantic web. I'd agree, except SHOULDs are an interop non-starter. Realistically, I have to start programming defensively, and half the point of having a standard is to stop defensive programming and take on some assumptions instead. Also, I don't see using non http: scheme URIs to refer to things resolving much; I still need to know we're referring to the same thing whatever scheme we use. The problem is naming, not http abuse. Bill de hÓra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPM0hfOaWiFwg2CH4EQIY9QCgvutFKPlMjMYHHcv1uAJ9beebUCoAoMNW nFmPbUMPFBZIkqcIfZA+1Zix =6x4c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 06:40:45 UTC