Re: Solutions to the Identification Problem, was Re: URIs / URLs

> 3.  We can, of course, use a non-resolvable URI scheme
> or make up a new one (as I'm guilty of doing myself).

I don't happen to think that making new URI schemes should be taboo: a
good mark is "can this particular resource be identified to my level
of satisfaction by any other URI space?". If not, create a new one for
it; I don't see the problem.

As for what URI to use for identifying non network retrievable
entities, does it matter? I mean theoretically it matters a great
deal, but realistically one could use any URI as long as it suits a
particular system. I like your three choices, but I would hardly label
them as "solutions"... rather they are choices that we have to put up
with for now - i.e. pick the one with the least disadvantages.

> If it served up text/rdf defined the right way, the two
> denotations could happen, at the moment, to be identical.

Erm... how many processors do you know of that derference the RDF
namespace to gain an insight into how RDF works?

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .