This is a long argument that's been going on in other communities for a
long time, Mike. I can see both sides.
Mike Taylor wrote:
> Jonathan Rochkind writes:
> > > > Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever
> > > > see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see
> > > > http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs. It seems
> > > > like having http and info URIs would *have* to be fine, since
> > > > info:uris *not being dereferenceable* are far less useful (I won't go
> > > > so far as 'useless') on the web, which is where all this is happening.
> > >
> > > What on earth does dereferencing have to do with this?
> > >
> > > We're talking about an identifier.
> > Because the ability to de-reference seems to be the main reason to use
> > an HTTP URI as an identifier, and the main reason that some people
> > prefer an HTTP URI as an identifier to an info: URI.
> That looks like a plain and simple confusion to me. Identifiers and
> addresses are two quite different things. That they happen to be
> expressed in similar or even identical syntax is an accident of
> history. Surely our experiences with XML namespaces (which do not
> "exist") have taught us that?
> _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\ "Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it!
> Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" -- Klingon
> Programming Mantra