RE: CURIEs: A proposal

so in that case, i.e. a URI consed up for  the pure purpose of a
namespace  uRI, wouldn't it be better to write urn:foo/bas --- as
opposed to using the HTTP scheme?

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com writes:
 > 
 > Misha Wolf writes:
 > 
 > > 7f  whether the IRI mapped to the prefix is required to be 
 > dereferenceable.
 > 
 > I'm not sure I'd put it this way, as I think it's a matter of degree 
 > rather than "whether".  Specifically:
 > 
 > * I believe that, by definition, any http URI is dereferenceable, in the 
 > sense that it is always appropriate to try a GET, except perhaps if your 
 > intentions are malicious (denial of service, etc.)  Thus, for example, 
 > it's always OK for a crawler to attempt a GET or HEAD on an http URI that 
 > it stumbles upon or cobbles up.
 > 
 > * The TAG has stated that it's always good practice for the authority to 
 > cause representations to be available.  Now, here's where I think it's a 
 > matter of degree.  I can imagine circumstances in which, notwithstanding 
 > the TAG's general advice, one would go the other way.  If, for example, a 
 > namespace were minted deep in the heart of some system, for uses really 
 > internal to that system, and from context we knew that it would be used 
 > for one or two documents of short lifetime and never again, well maybe 
 > then it's not worth the deployment cost of responding to GET requests. 
 > Still, it's a good thing at least in principle, so that if the crawler 
 > comes along, it gets a reasonable description.
 > 
 > So, I think the IRI mapped to the prefix is by definition dereferenceable 
 > (if in the http scheme) in the sense that you can always try, and that 
 > resource authorities SHOULD in most cases offer a representation.   There 
 > is some wiggle room between that SHOULD and a MUST.
 > 
 > --------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn 
 > IBM Corporation
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > 1-617-693-4036
 > --------------------------------------
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 

-- 
-- T. V. Raman

Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 23:06:52 UTC