Re: Real-world concept URIs

Hi Pieter,

If we still stick with URIs (as a name but not a locator) [1] but with a
different scheme, say "things" or something, your solution will still work
the same, right? There are already URN/DOI to URL resolvers [3], so
similarly but rather than using a service, your URIs identifying real world
things will use a convention to resolve them to information resources by
converting, say things:{foobar} to http://{foobar}, when one have to do a
lookup.

In my opinion it probably it could have been an alternative solution to the
http-range-14 [4,5] issue and provide a clear separation of information
resources and real world things. However, the challenge is to have everyone
agree to this convention and as we have so many real world things already
named using HTTP URIs, I am not sure whether it will be a practical
solution right now.

Luca,
In addition what Pieter said, sometimes we have add licences to the
information resource so that the information about Zebra is given in a free
open licence [for the Zebra you will have to pay :)], and history of the
document (not the Zebra), owener of the document (not the Zebra), etc. So
IMO there is a need to identify and name the information resource and real
world thing separately.

Best Regards,
Nandana

[1] - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3
[2] - http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml
[3] - http://nbn-resolving.de/
[4] - http://norman.walsh.name/2005/06/19/httpRange-14
[5] - https://plus.google.com/109693896432057207496/posts/Q7pCA6yqNtS

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Pieter Colpaert <pieter.colpaert@ugent.be>
wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> Short version:
>
> I want real-world concepts to be able to have a URI without a "http://".
> You cannot transfer any real-world concept over an Internet protocol
> anyway. Why I would consider changing this can be
>
>  * If you don't agree, why?
>  * If you do agree, should we change the definition of a URI? Will this
> break existing Linked Data infrastructure?
>