- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:12:21 +0300
- To: ext Eamonn Neylon <eneylon@manifestsolutions.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
- Cc: "'Eric Hellman'" <eric@openly.com>, <uri@w3.org>
On 2003-10-02 20:09, "ext Eamonn Neylon" <eneylon@manifestsolutions.com> wrote: > It's not about trust: "info:" is about having a pragmatic means of making > existing identifiers available to applications that need URI but do not need > dereference. And this is IMO the big mistake that is being made. To presume that users will never want to obtain information about the things denoted by those URIs is wrong. *I* expect to be a user of such URIs, and I certainly want to be able to access authoritative information via those URIs, and not by having to deploy a completely needless parallel infrastructure when HTTP will work just fine. >>> And dereference is very useful. > > Provided someone somewhere is willing, and allowed to, to provide a > dereference service then, yes, dereference is useful. But they *have*! It's called HTTP! > However, "info:" is > concerned with getting namespaces relevant to the community of use made > available as valid URI identifiers. Given that if http URIs exist for these > things then we would use them, the need for "info:" stems from the > non-existence of dereferencable representations for these things on the > Internet. You seem to be arguing in circles here. The reason for creating a non-resolvable URI scheme is because resolvable URIs for certain things do not exist?... Why not just invest the same effort into defining http: URIs for all those things and then you'd both have the URIs you need *and* they would be dereferencable -- and by using the web authority component of the http: URIs, you can delegate resolution responsibility to each registrant. You have the opportunity here to essentially have you cake and eat it. Cheers, Patrick
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 06:12:39 UTC