W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

Re: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:36:11 -0400
Message-ID: <015701c221de$320a3020$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> What is of value in some cases is:
> 1.  To be able to decide when and if information goes
> on the web or off the web.
> 2.  To be able to reuse the same technologies in
> both cases in different combinations.

If you ever want to use a document on the Web (i.e. give it a URI), then I
agree strongly with Tim that the namespace names should (and would support
must) be dereferencable.

> What is simpler than using a URN where name disambiguation
> (identity) is required but retrieval based on named
> location is not?

For the vast majority of applications using "http:" based URIs is the
simplest way to go. There are situations when a "non-Web" naming system,
such as ISBN, needs to be integrated into the Web, i.e. a URI needs to be
generated for otherwise non-web based resources. In such cases, relatively
few, and hopefully fewer in the future, URNs do seem applicable.


Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 11:41:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:32 UTC