W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:09:29 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B62A@HQ5>
To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-tag@w3.org

What is of value in some cases is:

1.  To be able to decide when and if information goes 
on the web or off the web.

2.  To be able to reuse the same technologies in 
both cases in different combinations.

There are information resources that exist in their 
own systems (please, not shared information space) 
which can be processed with the same technology but 
which can only become web-dereferenceable based on 
local policies not governed by the principles of 
web architecture.  The vendor members of the W3C 
have to service these different needs and should 
be able to do so without imposing additional costs. 

What is simpler than using a URN where name disambiguation 
(identity) is required but retrieval based on named 
location is not?


From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]

Perhaps the source of the controversy regarding XML Namespaces arises from
those XML applications that are not intended to be Web based? In such cases
I must admit it is a bit strange that dereferencable URIs are required, and
in such cases URNs are not an unreasonable option (understanding that I am
not personally in such applications).

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 11:10:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC