Re: Registration of acct: as a URI scheme has been requested

On 6/23/12 2:26 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Kingsley I totally agree that the net is a robust enough architecture 
> to handle a new scheme, and the axiom of 'tolerance' more or less 
> guarantees this.  But the question at hand is whether the benefits of 
> a new scheme justify the overhead involved.
Let me flip your question around re. http: scheme URIs and Linked Data.

Does the unintuitive nature of http: scheme URI based names warrant the 
adoption and comprehension overhead that it brings? Exhibit #1 
httpRange-14 imbroglio. Basically, whenever you attempt to explain the 
virtues of Linked Data you end up being stymied by the confusion 
inherent in http: scheme based names.
> The convenience of acct: in undeniable, but is conveniece a sufficient 
> motivation for creating a Internet level scheme/protocol.

The only solution is choice. Is this the only non http: URI in existence?

AWWW is "horses for courses" friendly, so is Linked Data. We should keep 
it that way :-)



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Saturday, 23 June 2012 19:36:07 UTC