- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:09:29 -0500
- 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? len 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). Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 11:10:04 UTC