Re: ISSUE-58: Scalability of URI Access to Resources

/ Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> was heard to say:
| I wonder if the discussion taking place on public-semweb-lifesci might
| be relevant to this? The message which gets you the thread
|
| http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2007Aug/0134.html
|
| was next to yours in my emailbox.

Yes, that looks like the same issue to me.

I have two immediate responses to the issue, which I will try to find time
to articulate more clearly in the near future. But anyway, they are:

1. http: != dereference

   That is, there's nothing about using an http: scheme URI that
   mandates dereference. It's perfectly reasonable to use http: URIs
   for resources that need not be dereferenced to be useful. XML
   namespaces come immediately to mind.

2. The dereference problem is scheme independent

   Suppose that you avoid http: because you're worried about the cost
   of dereference. Instead you use a (insert your favorite other
   scheme here) URI. But, in fact, you *do* need to dereference it, so
   you deploy an architecture that allows you to do so. Now, you've
   got exactly the same problem, it just took you an extra indirection
   (and a whole bunch of new infrastructure) to get here.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | What is familiar is what we are used
http://nwalsh.com/            | to; and what we are used to is most
                              | difficult to 'Know'--that is, to see as
                              | a problem; that is, to see as strange,
                              | as distant, as 'outside us'.-- Nietzsche