Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hendrikx-wallis-urn-nzl-00.txt

Didier PH Martin wrote:

>Hello Roy,
>
>I still do not see your point. Yes, you are right on the social issues.
>Nonetheless, locations independent naming schemas are better then location
>dependent schemas. 
>
The heart of the matter is, IMHO, that location independent naming 
schemas are an illusion with regard
to information systems. The issue is not simply *naming* information but 
also *interacting* with it. In order
to interact with the information, you need to bind the name to a 
location and simply declaring the naming
schema to be location independent does not save you from this.

Roy's point is (IMO) that you can use URLs (and the benefit of an 
existing, deployed, running system that
comes with them for free) right away since you'll face the 'location 
problem' in the end anyhow.

I think that it is far too often overlooked that you cannot abstract 
away the need for a system if you want to
*do* something with your identifiers. In an information system, 
identifiers are not only names but also references
(to locations) and to get to what they reference, they must be 
dereferenced. The need for a working dereferencing
mechanism does not go away by declaring the identifiers to be location 
independent. You simply defer the problem.

Jan


>I can move my data from a location to a new one and still
>use the same name. These people never said that this is the Holy Grail of
>the web, and please do not say that URLs are holy grails of the web too.
>It's probably the time for you to think twice about this. And I'll repeat
>myself: A location impendent schema is better than a location dependent
>schema, period. Come on Roy.
>
>Cheers
>Didier PH Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Jan Algermissen
Consultant & Programmer
http://jalgermissen.com

Received on Sunday, 13 February 2005 18:45:53 UTC