Print

Print


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 itís 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
------------------------------------