 |
 |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Rob Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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. Yes, I completely agree with this, which is why I think it *has* to be no problem that both info:uris and http uris can co-exist. I'm not entirely sure of the use case of identifiers that cannot be derefenced, I mean, I'm sure they exist (driver's license numbers, might be an example), but I don't see anything in the current info:uri registry wouldn't necessarily be better served with an HTTP uri. -Ross.