- From: Erik Hetzner <erik.hetzner@ucop.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:59:05 -0700
- To: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <P-IRC-EXBE01RA5C2du00001997@EX.UCOP.EDU>
At Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:04:18 -0700, John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com> wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > I think the specific's of ARK are a bit of a diversion from the main > topic. True; apologies if I have take the discussion too far off track. > If I understood Henrys suggestion correctly he was proposing using a > mechanism similar to ARK for indicating to client applications that > they are processing an XRI rather than a http: URL. Having gone back over the discussion, though I still do not understand XRIs, I think I can follow a bit better. Reading metaDataInURI-31 did clarify one thing for me: | Assignment authorities may publish specifications detailing the | structure and semantics of the URIs they assign. Other users of | those URIs may use such specifications to infer information about | resources identified by URI assigned by that authority. In other words, it is quite legitimate that, should a client know that ark.example.ORG and ark.example.COM are part of ARK, for that client to interpret ARKs published by ark.example.ORG in the way specified in the ARK spec; namely, that http://ark.example.ORG/ark:/12345/abcdef can be considered equivalent to http://ark.example.COM/ark:/12345/abcdef, or, at least, should ark.example.ORG go away, ark.example.COM may be used instead. I would like also to make the further point that ARK-unaware clients that encounter http://ark.example.org/ark:/12345/abcdef lose nothing by not interpreting that URI as an special ARK; they simply do not gain the benefit that ARK provides (resolution of the identifier following the dissolution of example.org). I do not know if this is the case for XRI. Furthermore, I think that ARKs do perhaps differ from XRIs in that the number of organizations that are ever going to use ARK has a small upper-bound; let us say, generously, 10,000. It is a small enough number that a list of domains which, when used in URIs may be considered to be publishing ARKs is small enough that every ARK-enabled client could keep a copy. Again, I do not know if the same holds for XRIs. > […] best, Erik Hetzner
;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 23:57:34 UTC