Re: Registration of acct: as a URI scheme has been requested

On 6/25/12 8:53 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
>
> In general, it sounds like folks on this mailing list, consisting 
> mostly of Linked Data aficionados,  are mushing up a simple (albeit 
> likely wrong-headed solution) for specifying "account@domain") URI 
> scheme with general ideas of follow-your-nose in HTTP with a browser. 
> Go figure.
>
> The meta-point is that unless a *new behavior* is specified, there 
> should not be a new URI scheme. That is why URNs are a failure, as is 
> replicating URN-like URI schemes for domain-specific purposes. There 
> seems to be no prescribed behavior with the accnt other than its usage 
> as a parameter on the server side to discover capabilities, which are 
> then returned as JSON (SWD) or XRD (Webfinger). 

What's the prescribed behavior for http: scheme URIs? Does said 
prescription intuitively correlated with Linked Data patterns?

The AWWW has always been about the concept of Linked Data, how about that?

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen