- From: Paul Prescod <prescod@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:34:25 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
I think the thing being neglected in this discussion is that the reason for the naming convention is that HTTP based resolution may not be always appropriate for these identifiers. You can't do an HTTP request to determine that another resolution mechanism would have been more reliable or efficient. Can you offer a suggestion that meets the requirements of the applicant? ###This message was lovingly handcrafted on a phone-like device### On 25-Jul-08, at 9:41 AM, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > >> HST [...] I think there's a fundamental issue we need to be clear >> on: is it OK for a group of domain name owners to agree a naming >> convention amongst themselves? In the ARK case, this trespasses on >> the WebArch advice wrt aliasing, and in general might also seem to >> fall foul of the whole business of URI opacity (that was Mark >> Baker's particular concern). > > "URI Opacity" is a term that I've found means different things to > different folks, so I try to avoid it now. But I do believe that > private naming conventions do cause harm to the Web because they are > essentially a proprietary form of link and link metadata. If two URIs > at different domains identify the same resource, dereferencing one of > them should provide a declaration (Link header, RDFa, whatever) that > the resource is the same (owl:sameAs or equivalent) as the other. > >> From a REST perspective, the architectural constraint that's being > disregarded by this practice is "hypermedia as the engine of > application state", and IMO, it's the constraint most responsible for > imparting Web-nature. > > Cheers, > > Mark. >
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2008 14:03:40 UTC