Re: draft-kindberg-tag-uri

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 13:35, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 
> The IESG is to publish draft-kindberg-tag-uri as an informational RFC 
> shortly. Comments on the draft is to be sent to me personally and the 
> authors.

As I wrote to Sandro earlier...

I certainly don't agree with:

"But there are
   drawbacks to URLs-as-identifiers:

   1) Software might try to dereference a URL-as-identifier, even though
      there is no resource at the "location"."

(a) there's always a resource there; there might not be a representation
available. But (b) if there isn't a representation available, there
should be.

i.e. names/identifiers take on meaning by use in protocols.
I don't see much value for making up names without some
sense of how they'll take on meaning.

And I don't see why the existing URI schemes don't work
just fine for naming stuff.

FYI, the W3C TAG has been doing work in this area; it's
not finished, but a stake in the ground is:

"Describe resources: Owners of important resources (for example,
Internet protocol parameters) SHOULD make available representations that
describe the nature and purpose of those resources."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webarch-20020830/

>     Regards, Patrik
>     Area Director, Applications Area, IETF
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/