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

RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 18:07:31 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A0708D@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Hi Mike,

> The TAG itself seems to have determined that the
> practical value of worrying about this further seems to be negligable.  
> 
> Is that about right?

Not sure that I'd state it so crisply, but for all practical purposes we may
be saying the same thing :-)

The TAG were unable to reach a concensus on whether or not it was bad
practice to use *http* scheme URI (without fragments) to identify abstract
concepts (like the Dublin Core Title property ie.
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title) or real world artifacts like a
person, a building or a car.

The TAG believes that it can make progress on the architecture document
without resolving this issue at this time. 

The TAG were able to agree that "Ambiguity in the relationship between URIs
and resources is harmful for humans and machines." [1] and (implicitly) that
using the same identifier to identify a 'thing' and a 'document' about or
description of a 'thing' can be problematic.

Hope that helps.

Best regards

Stuart Williams
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/24-tag-summary#httpRange-14 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
> Sent: 08 October 2002 17:00
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:41 AM
> > To: www-tag@w3.org; Larry Masinter
> > Subject: Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme
> > 
> > I thought that was a little crazy, if its Not On the Web then why
> > specify the protocol that you don't use?
> > 
> > Hence my on-the-fly suggestion for a new protocol, defined to be
> > non-dereferenceable, for things which are Not On the Web
> > 
> > now://
> 
> Thanks.  I think I understand (and personally agree, think it would have
> been a great addition to the namespaces spec 4 years ago, but do NOT want
to
> pursue it). As best I understand the various responses, everything worth
> mentioning on the web could be on the Web as an HTTP-referenceable
> description of that thing.  The TAG itself seems to have determined that
the
> practical value of worrying about this further seems to be negligable.  
> 
> Is that about right?  
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 13:07:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:34 UTC