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

On 23 June 2012 21:35, Kingsley Idehen <> wrote:

> 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.

IMHO http is extremely well designed.  I consider it intuitive and I've not
had a problem explaining the web of documents, to NON technical people, or
those that want to learn.

>> 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 :-)

I understand in the spirit of tolerance that a low bar should be set for
new ideas.

It's very tempting to mint new URI schemes in order to solve technical
problems.  People often think that the introduction of a new scheme will
solve all their problems, but in truth, it would take many years or even a
decade of hard work, for a new scheme to gain anywhere near the traction of
mailto: or http:.  Even then, it's not guaranteed.

By logical extrapolation we would also need a user: URI scheme to define
subject of type user, for the next app.  Perhaps a thing: URI scheme for
things.  And what about machines, will another spec need agent:?

Kingsley, I do agree with you that tolerance is perhaps the most important
axiom of the web, perhaps also in real life, too.  But from a technical
architecture perspective, there is an overhead for adding a new scheme, and
I think it's right for there to be oversight.

> --
> Regards,
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:
> Personal Weblog:**blog/~kidehen<>
> Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:**112399767740508618350/about<>
> LinkedIn Profile:**kidehen<>

Received on Sunday, 24 June 2012 08:43:09 UTC