 |
 |
From: "Hilmar Lapp" <[log in to unmask]> >> Nor do people outside of libraries care about identifiers. > > You might be surprised: http://www.lsrn.org/ yes, I overstated, let me rephrase. There are communities who are interested in specific object classes and want identifier schemes for them. For libraries there are books, article, journals, and many others. And certainly this isn't limited to libraries, for example many scientific disciplines have a similar interest in identifer schemes for objects in specific object classes. But the term "identifier" has taken on a whole new meaning with the web. It has now been generalized to identify any "resouce", and we don't even have a clear definition of resource, aside from the convoluted "anything that can be identified" - The discussions on this are often a convoluted mess, and it's no wonder location and identity get confused. And because of all the emphasis on solving this part of the web architecture - which haven't been accomplished, and there is debate within the W3C whether it is even possible - the original concept of identifer seems to be lost, aside from within the communities I alluded to above. And it is for those communities that the info URI is useful. Now as to my reference to "religious issues", a statement like "Having unresolvable URIs is anti-Web" would be better to stated as: "Having unresolvable URIs IN MY OPINION is anti-Web". It is an opinion, not a fact. Stating is as fact is dogmatic. It is a reasonable opinion, however, my opinion: "Having unresolvable URIs IN MY OPINION is PRO-Web" is just as reasonable. I needn't go into further detail, we've beaten this to death already. --Ray