- From: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:23:47 +0200
- To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- CC: Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@duke.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Phillip Lord wrote: > I don't understand the desire to implement everything using HTTP. Likewise, I don't understand the desire to implement everything using anything but HTTP :-) If there is an existing system that is (incredibly) widely adopted and that can be built upon, surely that's the way to go? > Why call > lots of things, which are actually several protocols by a name which suggests > that they are all one. How to distinguish between an HTTP URI which allows you > to do location independent, two step resolution and one which doesn't. Well, > one solution would be, perhaps, to call it something different, say, perhaps, > LSID? You could have the concept of LS HTTP URIs that follow certain conventions, may be useful for some, but I don't quite see the problem with the fact that you will be able to resolve some HTTP URIs, but not others: The only way to know whether a URI can be resolved or not, in the end, is to try; some systems just seem to make doing so harder...
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 17:24:04 UTC