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

On Feb 12, 2005, at 9:08 PM, Didier PH Martin wrote:
> 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. I can move my data from a location to a new one and 
> still use the same name.

Please show me the location in

that is somehow not present in


The L in URL stands for locator, not location.  That URN becomes
a locator as soon as a dereference mechanism is defined for it.
That URL is already a locator because the dereference mechanism
is already deployed.  They are both equally valid names except in
that the former is already deployed and thus known to be useful.

> 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.

Apparently, you haven't read the URN requirements document.

> 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.

Feel free to repeat yourself as often as you like -- deployment
experience has so far proven you wrong.  This is not a problem
that technology can solve, and so far the most persistent names
on the Internet are the ones that have the most usefulness.
Personally, I think my 12 years studying this particular problem
is more than sufficient to reach a conclusion, but you are free
to disagree with any of my conclusions.


Roy T. Fielding                            <>
Chief Scientist, Day Software              <>

Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 00:51:10 UTC