- From: Andy Powell <andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:45:12 +0000
- To: 'Norman Gray' <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, 'Kingsley Idehen' <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: 'Linked Data community' <public-lod@w3.org>
> David Booth's excellent [1] "Converting New URI Schemes or URN Sub- > Schemes to HTTP" is a discussion of the mapping between URNs or other > non-HTTP identifiers, and (cool) HTTP ones. I summarise it as "it's OK > to have both" Hmmm... the paper ends with: "HTTP URIs with specialized prefixes provide greater capability than URIs based on new URI schemes or URN sub-schemes in virtually all cases. Furthermore, such HTTP URIs seem better equipped to survive the test of time than URIs based on new URI schemes or URN sub-schemes." which hardly seems like a ringing endorsement of "it's OK to have both"? Andy [1] http://www.dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/ -- Andy Powell Research Programme Director Eduserv t: 01225 474319 m: 07989 476710 twitter: @andypowe11 blog: efoundations.typepad.com www.eduserv.org.uk
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 15:46:15 UTC