- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:26:47 +0100
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> that there is IMO a clear and essential property of > URLs, that they define a location (or access > mechanism) by which to obtain content, which makes > them unsuitable, for philosophical (and practical) > reasons as universal identifiers/names. As Pierre-Antoine has already stated, not all URLs get back some resolvable content. For example:- tel:+358-555-1234567 It's a location, but the concept of "URL" doesn't state what it's the location *of*. > A namespace should be identified *only* with > a URN. If that were so, then there would have been something in the XMLNS specification about it. As it is, there isn't, so it's not. I rarely ever see URNs being used for namespaces. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 10:27:27 UTC