Re: Are cool URIs for life?

On 4/27/17 11:17 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
> +1
>
> The namespaces for our vocabularies, for example, are all http - but
> the transport mechanism may be https (and w3.org will upgrade requests
> to http for clients that support it).
>
> Phil

Yep!

Thus, in response to @csarven's original question, this also means the
following is fine, in the real-world:

{ <{thingIdenfiedByHttpURI}> ldp:inbox <{thingIdenfiedByHttpsURI}> . }

## I am simply indicating that my inbox is HTTPS protected so that I can
use WebID+TLS for identity authentication
## without clients going into a CORS tail spin etc..

Actual live example:

{ [] schema:mainEntityOfPage <https://tinyurl.com/nye8wb6> . }.



Kingsley


>
>
> On 27/04/2017 15:57, Stephane Fellah wrote:
>> Please keep in mind that in the context of Linked Data, the use of HTTP
>> scheme in URI is just fine and actually recommended, as URI should be
>> considered only as globally unique names identifying a concept.
>> Naming and
>> addressing are two different things. Here the excellent blog for Norman
>> Walsh that explains the difference.
>> https://norman.walsh.name/2006/07/25/namesAndAddresses.
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephane Fellah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Marcel Fröhlich
>> <marcel.frohlich@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Instead of policing a refined design could help (for use cases that are
>>> worth the additional effort)
>>>
>>> - As unique identifiers URNs may be cooler than URIs because they don't
>>> mix up naming and access protocol.
>>>   Expect more protocol changes/variety to come than just a switch from
>>> HTTP to HTTPS, even if it takes some time.
>>>
>>> - Vanilla DNS is a mediocre base for URI namespaces, because DNS
>>> governance allows re-assignment of domains.
>>>   We need top-level domains that assign domain names only once.
>>>
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>> 2017-04-27 15:43 GMT+02:00 Keith Alexander <keithalexander@
>>> keithalexander.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>> When a naming system requires names to be maintained by an owner at
>>>> cost
>>>> (domain renewals, server provision, etc), it's very likely that
>>>> names are
>>>> going to change and fall out of use a lot...
>>>>
>>>> "Policing" (via pedantic-web or otherwise) may be useful for
>>>> accidental
>>>> name changes, but otherwise hints at a conflict of interests between
>>>> publisher and consumer (ie, the consumer wants the old name, the
>>>> publisher
>>>> wants the new one or wants to stop supporting the name altogether).
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are "cool URIs don't change" for life?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would the policing of this fall under the jurisdiction of
>>>>> pedantic-web?
>>>>>
>>>>> Discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aside: Please help me decide on this burning issue that I've been
>>>>> putting off: https://twitter.com/csarven/status/857569335908454401
>>>>>
>>>>> -Sarven
>>>>> http://csarven.ca/#i
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen       
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)

Weblogs (Blogs):
Legacy Blog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen

Profile Pages:
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
        : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this