- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:43:55 +0300
- To: sean@mysterylights.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> [...] > > > > A namespace should be identified *only* with > > > > a URN. > [...] > > "An example of a syntax that is designed with these goals in > > mind is that for Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141]. However, > > it should be noted that ordinary URLs can be managed in such > > a way as to achieve these same goals." > > Did you even read this citation? It says that URNs were designed with > the same goals in mind, but that URLs may be suitable as well. It does > *not* say only to use URNs! Is there some weird confusion about this? And I stated that, no, the spec does not say URNs and only URNs (re-read my posting). I *do* read "designed with these goals in mind" as equating to more suitable than "can be managed [made to work]" but *if* you know how to manage them to be made to work that way, etc. > The world isn't going to listen unless you are both reasonable and > realistic in your statements. Trying to get a world of highly > conservative (small "c") technologists to take up some weird new > suggestion when their current methods work just fine isn't going to > fly unless you understand that you're fighting against the tides, as > it were. I agree. Far more critical than the name versus location, URL as URN issue is the reliable derivation of URIs from QNames, and that is what I see as threatening the inoperability of the SW. > Yes, URNs or some other kind of URI scheme for generic identification > of arbitrary concepts is a good idea, and it is easy to deploy and so > forth. But if you start inferring plainly rediculous things such as > "URLs as namespaces should be banned", then people are just not going > to listen. You want to give them the choice - forcing people to do > anything that they don't *need* to do, especially without due reason, > is just going to alienate them, and run contrary to your cause. Point taken. I'm an incurable idealist at heart ;-) > You have some good ideas, but I think you need to sit down and think > carefully about how you're going to publicize them. Please see my proposal to a formula of QName to URI mapping that should work regardless of the URI scheme of the namespace name, or at least might be a step in the right direction to a formula that would work. Patrick
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 11:44:08 UTC