- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:34:25 -0800
- To: martind@netfolder.com
- Cc: 'Michael Mealling' <michael@neonym.net>, 'W3C TAG' <www-tag@w3.org>, colin.wallis@ssc.govt.nz, ferry.hendrikx@ssc.govt.nz
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
http://registry.govt.nz/dogs/registration/1-0
that is somehow not present in
urn:nzl:govt:registering:dogs:registration:1-0
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.
Cheers,
Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 00:51:10 UTC