- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:36:11 -0400
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > 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. If you ever want to use a document on the Web (i.e. give it a URI), then I agree strongly with Tim that the namespace names should (and would support must) be dereferencable. ... > > What is simpler than using a URN where name disambiguation > (identity) is required but retrieval based on named > location is not? > For the vast majority of applications using "http:" based URIs is the simplest way to go. There are situations when a "non-Web" naming system, such as ISBN, needs to be integrated into the Web, i.e. a URI needs to be generated for otherwise non-web based resources. In such cases, relatively few, and hopefully fewer in the future, URNs do seem applicable. Jonathan Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 11:41:44 UTC