- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:16:30 -0400
- 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. -- 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