On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 16:08 +0100, Ross Singer wrote:
> There should be no issue with having both, mainly because like I
> mentioned earlier, nobody cares about info:uris.

s/nobody cares/the web doesn't care/

'The Web' isn't the only use case.  There are plenty of reasons for
having non dereferencable identifiers, for example for things which do
not have a web representation, or have too many web representations to
make favouring one over another a waste of time. For example abstract
concepts.

> I guess the way I look at it is:
> 1.  The web is not going to wait for info:uris
> 2.  The web is not going to use info:uris anyway, even after we've
> exhausted all of the corner cases and come up with the perfect URI
> model for a given domain, *because there's nothing the web can do with
> them anyway*.

Working As Intended.

If you want an identifier that *explicitly* cannot be dereferenced, then
info URIs are a good choice.  If you want one that can be dereferenced
to some representation of the identified object, then HTTP is the only
choice.

Rob