XRI, URI (was: Re: FOAF OWL DL)

Paul Trevithick wrote:
> As you have observed, the clear benefit of XRIs is their stability--a
> characteristic which derives from them being "names" for things and not mere
> "locations" of things. For example, I might put my wallet on my dresser or I
> might put it on my desk (different locations), but it is always my wallet.
> The trouble with ordinary URIs is that http://my.desk.com/wallet is
> different from http://my.dresser.com/wallet. There is no separation of
> concerns: naming vs. location. They are mixed together.
>
> So for the W3C to say that "there's no clear benefit" while ,
> simultaneously works on (re-)inventing its own durable identifiers (as is
> underway in the past couple of years with Linked Data Hash URIs and 303
> URIs, appears a bit disingenuous.

If URL stability is an issue, why not use OID URNs (RFC 3061) or UUID
URNs (RFC 4122)? Both are freely available and permanent, and it is
even possible to register UUIDs as OIDs if you wish
(http://www.oid-info.com/get/2.25). If availability as a URL is also
desirable, setting up a resolver (such as the DOI resolver at
http://dx.doi.org/) is trivial, and integrates well with the 303
redirect system.

To me, XRIs appear to be the reinvention, at least from the viewpoint
of an end user with fairly simplistic requirements.


-- 
قبائلَ صوتي – على صمتها
Earle Martin | http://downlode.org/

Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 22:19:01 UTC