- From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:26:16 +0100
- To: 'Leo Sauermann' <leo@gnowsis.com>, thabing@uiuc.edu, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> And we are in the midst of uri crisis again ! This whole thread reminds me of Scott McNealy's position vis-a viz privacy on the Net: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it!" The same thing with URI dereferenceability: URIs do not have to be dereferenceable: Get over it! The "info" scheme merely seeks to identify information assets from public namespaces so that applications can refer to these assets in a highly standard (read "uniform") manner using URIs. Sure could be neat to add in the hooks for some extra dereference functionality. But that's well beyond the scope of the "info" URI scheme. All we are concerned with is representing these information assets within the URI naming architecture - nothing more. So, the suggestions to basically a) misuse HTTP (which despite everything still holds out the retrieval promise of GET, etc - it is after all a HyperText /Transfer/ Protocol), and b)to deploy a DNS domain name for use by third-party namespace authorities (a DNS domain over which they have no admin control) are both untenable positions - as far as the "info" URI scheme is concerned. I see no crisis. Tony
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 12:27:22 UTC