 |
 |
So is there anything wrong with having both that http-based PURL URI available, AND an info uri? Not only available, but in common use? It gets complicated thinking about these things. There are potentially several things wrong with it. Jonathan Ross Singer wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Leaving aside religious issues I just want to be sure we're clear on one >> point: the work required for the info URI process is exactly the amount of >> work required, no more no less. It forces you to specify clear syntax and >> semantics, normalization (if applicable), etc. If you go a different route >> because it's less work, then you're probably avoiding doing work that needs >> to be done. >> > > Avoiding the religious debate that I *think* Ray is referring to (http > vs. info URIs) and instead raising a different religious debate... > > I don't have a problem with going through this process to formalize an > info URI once a domain has been thoroughly evaluated and worked out, > but it throws any and all sense of 'agility' out the window and in > many cases, kills any potential hope of actually seeing these > identifiers at all. The upfront costs are just too high, the details > too arcane and the payoff too low for somebody like Jonathan to solve > an immediate problem. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't think these things out beforehand; > recklessness, of course, is not the answer. Perfection, however, > being the enemy of the good makes me think the info:uri process isn't > a particularly good or efficient one for working with real world > problems. > > Add to it that nobody gives a damn about info:uris outside of > libraries, it seems like a total waste of energy. > > Although I suppose that strays back into the original religious debate. > > -Ross. > >