 |
 |
At Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:34:12 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > […] > > I think too much of this conversation is about people's ideal vision of > how things _could_ work, rather than trying to make things work as best > as we can in the _actual world we live in_, _as well as_ planning for > the future when hopefully things will work even better. You need a > balance between the two. This is a good point. But as I see it, the web people - for lack of a better word - *are* discussing the world we live in. It is those who want to re-invent better ways of doing things who are not. HTTP is here. HTTP works. *Everything* (save one) people want to do with info: URIs or urn: URIs or whatever already works with HTTP. I can count one thing that info URIs possess that HTTP URIs don’t: the ‘feature’ of not ever being dereferenceable. And even that is up in the air - somebody could devise a method to dereference them at any time. And then where are you? > […] > > a) Are as likely to keep working indefinitely, in the real world of > organizations with varying levels of understanding, resources, and > missions. Could somebody explain to me the way in which this identifier: <http://suphoa5d.org/phae4ohg> does not work *as an identifier*, absent any way of getting information about the referent, in a way that: <info:doi/10.10.1126/science.298.5598.1569> does work? I don’t mean to be argumentative - I really want to know! I think there may be something that I am missing here. > b) Are as likely as possible to be adopted by as many people as possible > for inter-operability. Having an ever-increasing number of possible > different URIs to represent the same thing is something to be avoided if > possible. +1 > c) Are as useful as possible for the linked data vision. +1 > […] best, Erik