- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:00:23 -0700
- To: "'URI'" <uri@w3.org>
- CC: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
hello. Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > In other words, the URN is an HTTP-URL sans "http:" > There are several advantages of this. Although an HTTP-URL can be taken > as a URN as well as a URI. But this dual mode makes people very > uncomfortable. This scheme-less URN helps easy the issue. i am nor sure i understand this. URNs were intended to denote things that have no clearly defined way of retrieval, but the notion that locators and names are two entirely different things never was really true, which is probably the reason why the whole URN thing did not happen. but by using domain names in what you call "URNs", you put quite a bit of internet-specificity into what should be an abstract naming scheme. how would you, for example, in that approach map ISBN numbers to your proposed URN structure? cheers, dret.
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 00:01:16 UTC