On Feb 12, 2005, at 9:08 PM, Didier PH Martin wrote: > I still do not see your point. Yes, you are right on the social issues. > Nonetheless, locations independent naming schemas are better then > location > dependent schemas. I can move my data from a location to a new one and > still use the same name. Please show me the location in http://registry.govt.nz/dogs/registration/1-0 that is somehow not present in urn:nzl:govt:registering:dogs:registration:1-0 The L in URL stands for locator, not location. That URN becomes a locator as soon as a dereference mechanism is defined for it. That URL is already a locator because the dereference mechanism is already deployed. They are both equally valid names except in that the former is already deployed and thus known to be useful. > These people never said that this is the Holy Grail of > the web, and please do not say that URLs are holy grails of the web > too. Apparently, you haven't read the URN requirements document. > It's probably the time for you to think twice about this. And I'll > repeat > myself: A location impendent schema is better than a location dependent > schema, period. Come on Roy. Feel free to repeat yourself as often as you like -- deployment experience has so far proven you wrong. This is not a problem that technology can solve, and so far the most persistent names on the Internet are the ones that have the most usefulness. Personally, I think my 12 years studying this particular problem is more than sufficient to reach a conclusion, but you are free to disagree with any of my conclusions. Cheers, Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/> Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/>Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 00:51:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:32 GMT