- From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:41:10 +0100
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Joshua, while I basically agree that HTTP would have been a good choice here, one point-- Joshua Allen wrote: | The justification offered in the FAQ seems to boil down to a fallacy -- | since URLs and URNs *can* be used to locate things, then they by nature | are not suitable for *identifying* things, and therefore, the authors | must invent a new scheme for resource identification. This is patently | false -- the primary purpose of URIs (and especially URNs) has always | been to identify, and resolvability is a secondary and non-critical | facet. I'm surprised by this. Isn't the original use case of URIs <a href="">? Would you argue that resolvability is secondary there? Sure, URIs have many uses beyond that, but I'd think that Web links are the originally most important one. I'm not sure I understood your reasoning right. Cheers, - - Benja -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAEVy2UvR5J6wSKPMRAuQuAJ0XSpV3QLIhIJnK0S6Ljee+EH/roACg035j lnAoLhxpUAOn6mo0n+hBgsY= =cy76 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 23 January 2004 12:49:35 UTC