RE: Announcement: The "info" URI scheme

> 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.

Hi Tim:

(Now, wouldn't it be really neat if the architecture guys actually
/believed/ in the architecture. But then that's clearly blasphemous, and I
wouldn't want to be caught out standing on any heretical position. My
position is URI over everything.)

So the tooth fairy pops up and champions this URI concept - back then, when.
Well that's a really, extremely neat kind of idea - full marks to all
concerned - because suddenly we have a /uniform/ system for identifying
resources across a global information space - we have a /uniform/ syntax, we
have a /uniform/ semantics, /and/ further (not much appreciated) we have a
/uniform/ terminology for talking about information constructs. (Please
understand that I intend here that all these elements operate at the meta,
bulk or packaging level. Individual URI schemes will of course introduce
appropriate refinements as required.)

And then, just when it's all really peachy, some whistle blower comes out
and says "Way, hey!" - HTTP is all you really ever needed. Because, clearly,
this is after all /only/ a hypertext system we're talking about. (Forget
that infospace thing, that was just a teaser. Aw, bummer!)

And so, whatever really happened to all that "uniformity" we were promised?
The folks can rub along with (that mother of all URIs) - HTTP.

Well, fact is. The HTTP thing just doesn't scale. Let's face it. We'll have
that Semantic Web thing left stood out on the street. This is why we
recommend to you the "info" URI scheme (along with sundry other URI schemes
as deemed suitable) to your general attention.

Tony

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 15:38:42 UTC