 |
 |
But shouldn't we be able to know the difference between an identifier and a locator? Isn't that the problem here? That you don't know which it is if it starts with http://. kc Houghton,Andrew wrote: >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress >> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:58 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re: >> [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?) >> >> I realize this is pretty much a dead-end debate as everyone has dug >> themselves into a position and nobody is going to change their mind. It >> is a >> philosophical debate and there isn't a right answer. But in my opinion >> .... >> > > Often it is portrayed as a philosophical debate, but it's about standards. > Nothing in RFC 3986 says that any URI scheme should be made or is > resolvable. A URI with an HTTP scheme is just as good as a URI with any > other scheme. URIs are just identification tokens. Resolvability or > dereference is about the use of URI. > > >> Why? Because it drives me nuts to see http URIs everywhere that give >> all appearances of resolvability - browsers, editors, etc. turn them >> into clickable links. >> > > This happens with info URIs too. Show a person an info URI an tell them > that it’s a URI, and they might swipe the text and try to resolve it in > their favorite browser. It doesn't help when there browser spits back > "unknown URI scheme". They will probably just go off an Goggle it. > > The argument that info URIs are not resolvable, just doesn't mean that > someone will not try to resolve it in their browser. Resolvability, > like persistence, is a policy statement about a URI. > > > Andy. > > > -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------