Re: URIs for media types

hello.

On 2011-03-08 23:58, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> I agree that for areas such as the Semantic Web, it's worthwhile. I also
> agree that the effort required may be rather low (for us) if you
> volunteer to do it.

i don't think it's in any way specific to the semantic web. in fact, 
that would be the application area requiring most constraints, because 
there you would probably want the URIs to resolve (working HTTP URIs), 
and you'd like to get some RDF, maybe based on SKOS. URI-based 
identification is relevant for any web-targeted design, and using URIs 
is just more scalable and robust than creating a separate namespace with 
its own syntax.

> I would note that there is currently somewhat less enthusiasm for having
> such URIs at (potentially) servable/served locations, because of the
> recurring tough experiences that W3C has had with unintended but
> clueless DOS attacks on their HTML DTDs. (See e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic.)

very good point, and a very good link to illustrate the problem. i'd be 
perfectly fine to establish non-HTTP URIs to avoid that problem, and the 
info: URI scheme or others could be chosen to do this. the proposed URIs 
would not serve the purpose of actionable links (it simply might be 
helpful if you could paste them into the address bar and actually GET 
something), they would just be well-defined identifiers in the web's 
namespace: the URI space.

thanks and cheers,

erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-6432253 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 20:12:02 UTC