RE: URI: Name or Network Location?

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the info.
My question was different.
I missed the fact that there is (an alternative) namespace registration
under info. (and was foolishly ironing about not having it :-))

Then all your points are well taken other then ...
... I am afraid that for similar reasons after "urn" and "info" registration
schemes there will come others, such as:
mil:
gov: 
art:
co.uk:
fr:
:-):

Like URLs upside down, but with much less order (because they will all
provide their own pros and cons, equality rules, etc.).
For some reason this perspective just looks scary to me.
May be I am wrong.

Cheers,

--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 8:26 AM
! To: 'Nikita Ogievetsky'
! Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
! Subject: RE: URI: Name or Network Location?
! 
! 
! Hi Nikita:
! 
! pii = Publisher Item Identifier
! 
! One link for this is giving a brief one-page overview is at
! <http://www.aip.org/epub/piipr.html>. (I'm not quite sure where the
! defintive spec is housed these days.)
! 
! 	"A Publisher Item Identifier (PII) to provide unique and concise
! identification of individual published documents has been adopted by the
! American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American
! Physical
! Society, Elsevier Science, and IEEE. The PII will begin to appear in the
! journals of these publishers from January 1996. Use of the PII is intended
! to provide a simple means of document identification which is needed in a
! digital environment."
! 
! The PII is now largely superseded by the DOI (or Digital Object
! Identifier),
! see <http://www.doi.org>, although it is still being used by some
! publishers.
! 
! Why not a URN? See the FAQ:
! 
! 	http://www2.elsevier.co.uk/~tony/info/info.html#use_urn
! 
! Hope that helps some,
! 
! Tony
! 
! > -----Original Message-----
! > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
! > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Nikita Ogievetsky
! > Sent: 23 January 2004 12:38
! > To: 'Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)'
! > Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
! > Subject: 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 Sunday, 25 January 2004 22:38:58 UTC