Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace

Michael Mealling wrote:

> But they don't need to resolve the URI in order to be able to
> reason about it. They just need the URI to act like a URI...

Just so.   Unfortunately, namespace names aren't URIs; they are strings
with the syntax of URI *references*.
 
> Ahh.... You think that just because the R happens to be a mailbox
> that the I can't be used as a name. That isn't true. The R here
> is the mailbox, sure. But that doesn't mean you can't say that
> the namespace is named by the I. Now, if some application comes along
> and wants to try and resolve that to something it will get teh
> equivalent of "You have to send this guy email and ask him what
> this namespace means". Which, IMHO, is perfectly reasonable...

You keep talking about "resolution" (by which you mean "access"),
but that isn't the issue in assigning a URI to a namespace.  Because
a mailbox has a URI, it is possible to write metadata statements about
the mailbox, using RDF syntax, which applications can read.  There is
no requirement for accessing (or posting to) a URI in order to find
out things about the resource identified by the URI.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)