Re: Real-world concept URIs

Hi Nandana,

Thank you a lot for your clear reply!

On 2014-07-17 19:17, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote:
> 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.

Correct! "thing:" could be the protocol of the real world: thing:A can 
shake hands with thing:B, http://A can serve the fact that thing:A shook 
hands with thing:B over HTTP. I like it!

>
> 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.

Indeed.

> 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.

There are indeed already a lot of things named using HTTP URIs, and that 
is okay. Nothing will break :)

Kind regards,

Pieter