Re: Datatypes with no (cool) URI

There are just some things outside of the Web's bailiwick, and the properties of people in that class.  The problem is that you are never sure if you are naming the property on rudely calling the property holder names.  ISO declines to play, the LOC declines differently and simple classes don't exist.  I think you've hit a limit, not on Cool Uri's necessarily, but maybe on philosophy.

 From: John Erickson <>
To: David Booth <> 
Cc: Phil Archer <>; "" <> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Datatypes with no (cool) URI
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM, David Booth <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:33 +0100, Phil Archer wrote:
>> [ . . . ] The actual URI for it is
>> (or rather, that's the page about the spec but that's a side issue for
>> now).
>> That URI is just horrible and certainly not a 'cool URI'. The Eurostat
>> one is no better.
>> Does the datatype URI have to resolve to anything (in theory no, but in
>> practice? Would a URN be appropriate?
> It's helpful to be able to click on the URI to figure out what exactly
> was meant.  How about just using a URI shortener, such as or

David's good point raises an even bigger point: why isn't ISO minting
DOI's for specs?

Or, at least, why can't ISO manage a DOI-equivalent space that would
rein-in bogusly-long URIs, make them more manageable, and perhaps more
functional e.g. CrossRef's Linked Data-savvy DOI proxy

John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<> <>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 15:19:47 UTC