W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Boeing XRI Use Cases

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:16:30 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640807160816k37247027m3c08b440e7dbf0a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>

On 7/15/08, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>  Consider the ARK proposal (which I have always held up as a model of
>  how to use http: URIs to address requirements similar to many of the
>  requirements on XRI) [1].
>  It offers an approach in which e.g.
>       http://loc.gov/ark:/12025/654xz321
>       http://rutgers.edu/ark:/12025/654xz321
>  identify the _same_ object.  Implicit in the overall proposal is the
>  proposition that the above example URIs were minted by people other
>  than the owners of the domain names they begin with.  The minters
>  _are_ expected to be the owners of the subsidiary authority identified
>  by 12025 in the above URIs, and it only makes sense for them to do so
>  if they have an agreement in place with the owners of rutgers.edu and
>  loc.gov to serve and/or proxy to representations as specified by the
>  ARK RFC, which gives them a kind of second-hand ability to mint URIs.
>  Are you happy with that kind of design?

No, for the same reasons mentioned by others here.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 15:17:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC