RE: URI: Name or Network Location?

Tony,

A quick question.
Lets take an example from FAQ [1]:

info:pii/s0888-7543(02)96852-7

What is "pii" namespace?
Where is it defined? - I missed this when briefly browsing docs. 
Does it stand for "primary internet interests" or "private intimate ideas"?
:-)

BTW: why not URN scheme?

[1] http://www2.elsevier.co.uk/~tony/info/info.html

--Nikita

! -----Original Message-----
! From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-interest-
! request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)
! Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 2:45 AM
! To: 'Patrick Stickler'
! Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
! Subject: RE: URI: Name or Network Location?
! 
! 
! Hi Patrick:
! 
! > There is no need to introduce yet another URI scheme just to handle
! > (more) persistent naming and redirection.
! 
! I would just like to point out that INFO expressly excludes dereference -
! so
! no redirection available. There are multiple reasons why we have
! positioned
! INFO thus. I would invite you to consult the FAQ at
! <http://info-uri.info/registry/docs/misc/faq.html> which goes into the
! details of why we have made this design choice. Bottom line is that we are
! looking for a lightweight scheme for conferring identity (alone) of public
! namespaces onto the Web. We do not support the idea of overloading the
! HTTP
! document retrieval functionality with an independent naming functionality.
! (By retrieval I intend the full set of CRUD actions.) Also any reliance on
! DNS is inherently fragile and unnecessary - and frankly confusing.
! 
! > I am personally saddened to see the info: URI scheme emerge
! > rather than a similar solution based on http: URIs,
! 
! Without intending to be facetious, I also am personally saddened to see
! all
! URIs collapsed to a single HTTP scheme. That would seem to me to be the
! undoing of URI as a generic identifier architecture. The possibilities
! that
! URI presents as a federeated namespace for identifying resources is too
! great not to want to see it further elaborated so as to incorporate legacy
! naming systems.
! 
! Tony
! 
! 
! 
! > -----Original Message-----
! > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
! > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Patrick Stickler
! > Sent: 23 January 2004 07:38
! > To: ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)
! > Cc: ext Sandro Hawke; Thomas B. Passin; 'Phil Dawes'; ext Jeremy
! > Carroll; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
! > Subject: Re: URI: Name or Network Location?
! >
! >
! >
! >
! > On Jan 22, 2004, at 17:38, ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
! >
! > >> It seems to me
! > >> that the most obvious way of addressing this is to use a
! > URI to denote
! > >> the thing (i.e. a name) and a seperate way of talking about the
! > >> numerous ways of locating information about it.
! > >
! > > Hence INFO, see <http://info-uri.info/> ...
! >
! >
! > There is no need to introduce yet another URI scheme just to handle
! > (more) persistent naming and redirection.
! >
! > http: based PURLs work just fine. As I've pointed out before, you
! > can accomplish all that you aim to accomplish with the info: URI
! > scheme by simply using http: URIs grounded in your top level
! > domain, delegating control of subtrees of that namespace to the
! > various managing entities per each subscheme (the same is true
! > of urn: URIs). Then each http: URI can be associated with an
! > alias to which it redirects, as well as allow for access to
! > metadata descriptions via solutions such as URIQA[1]. E.g.
! > rather than
! >
! >     info:lccn/n78890351
! >
! > you'd have
! >
! >     http://info-uri.info/lccn/n78890351
! >
! > thus providing just as robust and long lived an identifier (since
! > one would think that if info-uri.info dissappeared, so too would
! > all integrity for any info: URI) yet still allow existing web
! > protocols such as HTTP to be employed to provide access to
! > descriptions and representations; either directly or via
! > redirections of various sorts.
! >
! > Even if some particular info subscheme had no intention of
! > providing any representations or descriptions *now*, if ever
! > the decision were changed, it would be possible with *no*
! > impact to any usage of those URIs as names.
! >
! > I am personally saddened to see the info: URI scheme emerge
! > rather than a similar solution based on http: URIs, dispite
! > my appreciation that the definition of standardized URIs
! > for so many important vocabularies has been sorely needed
! > for far too long.
! >
! > Patrick
! >
! >
! > [1] http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html
! >
! >
! > >
! > > Tony
! > >
! > >
! > >> -----Original Message-----
! > >> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
! > >> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Phil Dawes
! > >> Sent: 22 January 2004 15:23
! > >> To: Patrick Stickler
! > >> Cc: ext Sandro Hawke; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; Thomas B.
! > Passin; ext
! > >> Jeremy Carroll
! > >> Subject: Re: URI: Name or Network Location?
! > >>
! > >>
! > >>
! > >> Hi Patrick,
! > >>
! > >> Patrick Stickler writes:
! > >>>
! > >>> Per your view, most URIs do not denote web pages, images,
! > >>> video streams, services, etc. but all denote "locations" and
! > >>> if we ever want to describe all those web-accessible resources,
! > >>> we need an entirely different set of URIs for them if we wish
! > >>> to talk about them.
! > >>>
! > >>
! > >> But surely the only reason this argument has weight is
! > because there
! > >> is usually only 1 way of retrieving that web resource* - i.e. HTTP.
! > >> Thus it becomes an attractive choice for naming it.
! > >>
! > >> If the web hadn't turned out the way it has, and there were lots of
! > >> protocols vying on equal footing for supremacy, then the
! > 'it's a name'
! > >> argument wouldn't seem so obvious. We would, as you say,
! > probably have
! > >> a way of talking about the web resource itself, and a
! > seperate way of
! > >> talking about the numerous ways of locating it.
! > >>
! > >> The problem now is that we are attempting to use HTTP URIs
! > to describe
! > >> abstract concepts and physical objects, and so the 'it's a name'
! > >> argument for HTTP URIs is suddenly non-obvious again. It
! > seems to me
! > >> that the most obvious way of addressing this is to use a
! > URI to denote
! > >> the thing (i.e. a name) and a seperate way of talking about the
! > >> numerous ways of locating information about it.
! > >>
! > >> Cheers,
! > >>
! > >> Phil
! > >>
! > >> * or the representation of that resource
! > >>
! > >
! > >
! >
! > --
! >
! > Patrick Stickler
! > Nokia, Finland
! > patrick.stickler@nokia.com
! >
!

Received on Friday, 23 January 2004 07:37:39 UTC