Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal

On Sat, 27 May 100, John Cowan wrote:
> Better yet, just agree that the namespace name *always* 
> implies a data URI encapsulating it.

I like your "data:" proposal.  However, it does not really
help us with the "absolutizing" debate, does it?

> If accessing two URIs retrieves the same entity body, it proves nothing
> [about the two URIs identifying the same resource]: they may have the
> same content by coincidence.
> 
> If accessing two URIs retrieves a different entity body, it still proves
> nothing: they may identify a single time-varying resource.

This is a great argument why a URL makes for a bad URN.  

However, is this practical in our context?  I mean, is 
there any other serious reason for retrival other than 
for getting a schema or human description or catalog of 
resources for the namespace?  In each of these examples 
none of the theoritical problems occur...

Best,

Clark