Decentralization (was Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view))

At 08:34 AM 6/20/00 -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>> But why do this when the binary decision is what we actually _need_,
>> to satisfy the goals of the namespace rec., and when literal
>> comparison of absolute URIs enables this to be something that we can
>> get?
>
>Because you can never guarantee this in a decentralized system. As I
>pointed out, this has *nothing* to do with URIs but everything to do with
>using decentralized names that support indirection. URIs allow up to code
>these names up which no other syntax does.

It's not clear to me that URIs are the _only_ plausible mechanism for
supporting indirection or a decentralized system.

In fact, the relatively tight binding between URLs are retrievable
resources seems like a strike against (at least the URL subset of) URIs for
indirection.

URIs are a decentralized system that has proven convenient in the absence
of other decentralized architectures, but I don't think URIs have a
monopoly on such behavior, and their 'proper' usage seems to be fairly
controversial, even among those who strongly support URIs.

It might be interesting to consider a (likely RDF-based) decentralized
system for collecting information about identifiers in general, without
concern for URI practices in particular.  In the long term, that strategy
might get us out of our current muddle and build a firmer foundation.

I doubt that will end this discussion in the next month, however, so I
guess we'll keep going...

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2000 15:07:28 UTC