- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:38:25 +0100
- To: "Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Schleiff, Marty writes:
> I'm not happy with the ARK approach, because my company may have reason
> to mint a URI like http://boeing.com/ark:/120025/654xz321 that has
> nothing to do with ARK, and has no relationship to the object identified
> by http://loc.gov/ark:/12025/654xz321 or
> http://rutgers.edu/ark:/12025/654xz321.
What is the problem if you do? If Boeing isn't a party to the ARK
story, then it is under no obligation to behave according to that
story when it handles GET requests.
And of course, in a way parallel to the WEBDAV story told elsewhere in
this thread, a cautious user of ARK-based URIs will make a metadata
request (via an empty query string) to confirm that they have an ARK
URI before proceeding based on that assumption
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIfQrBkjnJixAXWBoRAswXAJ9SUed4tkAfAQ55IaPeM2eaznAE2gCdFHmb
fvx/mG62rrxWqUwnbo9VtvY=
=giI7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 20:39:22 UTC