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 :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC