- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:33:19 -0500
- To: Andy Powell <andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk>
- CC: 'Norman Gray' <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, 'Linked Data community' <public-lod@w3.org>
Andy Powell wrote: >> 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/ > You can have varying capabilities across fellow occupants of a mutually inclusive realm, one would hope :-) Kingsley > -- > Andy Powell > Research Programme Director > Eduserv > t: 01225 474319 > m: 07989 476710 > twitter: @andypowe11 > blog: efoundations.typepad.com > > www.eduserv.org.uk > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 18:33:51 UTC