Re: first there was HTTP: .... then there was FTP: ... and now FI PA:

> Presumably FIPA has some set of requirements and use cases in mind that show
> that the software agents they (you?) want to build can't simply re-use the
> existing URI schemes and infrastructure?  It would be nice if those could be
> made public (or, if they already are, a reminder would be appreciated).
> 
> For example, this would help to answer what is it that a set of FIPA OWL
> ontologies in a well-known http namespace can't do.  I'm prepared to accept
> that are are such needs, but at the present time I can't see what they are.

I'll second that.  There's a significant group of people (including
myself) who usually hold that opinion that urn: URIs are by definition
less useful than http: URIs.  The main argument against HTTP URIs
seems to be based in either a misunderstanding that only the HTTP
protocol can be used with http: URIs, or in distrust of the DNS.
People who don't trust the DNS seem to want to replace it with
something they control themselves.  But, of course, everyone else is
likely to distrust them even more than they distrust the DNS....

So some use cases would be good.

     -- sandro

Received on Friday, 9 January 2004 15:02:22 UTC