RE: URI: Name or Network Location?

> I simply can't fathom any real benefit to having a URI
> which, by definition, cannot be used to access such knowledge.

The reason is to keep the barrier to entry as low as possible. By explicitly
excluding dereference we have devised a very simple, focussed registration
mechanism which requires almost zero maintenance and is consistent across
the whole INFO namespace with a predictable behaviour (i.e. disclosure of
identity). This is a baseline service - think of it as something like the
Model T.

I agree that it would be useful to have resource representations sitting out
there on some network endpoint - but that is just way too expensive for the
namespaces we are interested in fostering. There are no (human) resources
available to maintain such an undertaking. The conclusion is that we either
go this zero-resolution route or we accept that many of these namespaces
will continue not to be represented on the Web. Which means that we will
continue to be frustrated by not being able to 'talk' about well-known
public information assets in Web description technologies.


Received on Monday, 26 January 2004 06:37:11 UTC