- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:09:56 +0100
- To: Bent Rasmussen <incredibleshrinkingsphere@gmail.com>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Bent, On 20 Apr 2008, at 23:00, Bent Rasmussen wrote: > I tend to favor protocol-independent URIs (URNs) because they really > are just identifiers and do not "age" with protocols, so to speak - > or worse, become misleading over time. The problem with URNs is that applications need to be modified or rewritten before they can know what a URN identifies. That's quite a high cost, and is one of the main reasons why many URN schemes never caught on -- not enough developers bothered to hardcode support for them into existing applications. Naming schemes that piggy-bank on HTTP don't have this problem, HTTP support is ubiquitous, and applications can learn that your URI identifies a person by making an HTTP request to retrieve a description of the identified thing. For general notes on how to use HTTP URIs on the Semantic Web, see [1]. Best, Richard [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/ > > (Inspired by "Cool URIs dont' change") > > - Bent >
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 09:10:30 UTC