But shouldn't we be able to know the difference between an identifier
and a locator? Isn't that the problem here? That you don't know which it
is if it starts with http://.
kc
Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:58 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
>> [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
>>
>> I realize this is pretty much a dead-end debate as everyone has dug
>> themselves into a position and nobody is going to change their mind. It
>> is a
>> philosophical debate and there isn't a right answer. But in my opinion
>> ....
>>
>
> Often it is portrayed as a philosophical debate, but it's about standards.
> Nothing in RFC 3986 says that any URI scheme should be made or is
> resolvable. A URI with an HTTP scheme is just as good as a URI with any
> other scheme. URIs are just identification tokens. Resolvability or
> dereference is about the use of URI.
>
>
>> Why? Because it drives me nuts to see http URIs everywhere that give
>> all appearances of resolvability - browsers, editors, etc. turn them
>> into clickable links.
>>
>
> This happens with info URIs too. Show a person an info URI an tell them
> that it’s a URI, and they might swipe the text and try to resolve it in
> their favorite browser. It doesn't help when there browser spits back
> "unknown URI scheme". They will probably just go off an Goggle it.
>
> The argument that info URIs are not resolvable, just doesn't mean that
> someone will not try to resolve it in their browser. Resolvability,
> like persistence, is a policy statement about a URI.
>
>
> Andy.
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|