- From: Daniel R. Tobias <dtobias@21stcenturyinvestor.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:49:21 +0900
- To: uri@w3.org
On 21 Jan 2002 at 17:11, Patrick Stickler wrote: > There is, I feel, a significant difference between might not resolve > and must not resolve. It is true that a resource denoted by a URN may > never have a digital representation instantiated at any given location, > but that doesn't make such a URN the equivalent of a URP. But, to play "devil's advocate" for the contemporary paradigm (after my earlier arguments in favor of a more elaborate taxonomy), "never" is a very long time... things tend to change, sometimes in unpredictable ways, but their names don't always change accordingly -- look at the Los Angeles Lakers and Utah Jazz, whose team names made more sense when they were the Minneapolis Lakers and New Orleans Jazz. Thus, when somebody assigns a name in a particular URI scheme to something based on his assessment of whether or not that "something" ever will be resolvable on the Internet, this assessment may well be contradicted by later events, leading to a need for a kludged-up method of resolving URIs of a form that were supposed to be defined to be unresolvable, or contrariwise, to the continued use of URIs to things no longer resolvable that use schemes that indicate supposedly resolvable resources, because they've embedded themselves as identifiers in some context where they can't easily be changed. -- Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://www.dantobias.com/webtips/
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 14:49:59 UTC