- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:55:08 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, uri@w3.org
So, as I understand it, 'info:' is just like 'urn:' except for: - For 'info:xxx:', NISO hands out the 'xxx' - There is no requirement for permanence or reference stability. This latter is I suppose why you wouldn't want to do 'urn:info:xxx:' which otherwise would work just fine. Is that oversimplifying? Eric Hellman outlined, quite clearly, the notion that the absence of a built-in dereference mechanism is an advantage for political reasons. While his sentences parse and I have to acknowledge that empirically, it's possible for a human to believe this, the whole notion that an identifier is better because non-dereferenceable just comes from a different planet thatn the one I live on. Like Roy says, let the market decide. I think, though, that if the URN fans and the doi: and info: and tag: people all got together in a room and came out with a reduced number of URI schemes, they and the community would be winners. -- Cheers, Tim Bray (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 13:58:25 UTC