[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses

• To: ext Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>, ext Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:13:26 +0200
• In-reply-to: <D7155AD41ECFD511AF4A00B0D0202CB51DFE03@MAILHOST>
• User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309

On 2002-02-19 23:11, "ext Michael Brennan" <Michael_Brennan@A...>
wrote:

>> From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@n...]
> 
> <snip/>
> 
>> (d) Do we have to use http: URLs as namespace URIs to make it work?
>> 
>> Until DDDS and SW technologies mature a bit more, probably yes, in
>> most contexts.
> 
> Actually, I would think that RDDL will work fine for any URL that can be
> shared and can be resolved to a reference to a document. ftp:, for instance,
> would work just as well as http:.

Well, I guess I meant any kind of URL -- but since the proponents of
the contemporary view swear that there is no such class as URL anymore,
it would have been (for them least) a vacuous statement ;-)

> This is a minor point, but it points to a more important point. The biggest
> fly in the ointment, here, is the common use of "http:" URIs that don't
> point to anything. I personally consider that to be very bad practice. I
> don't think we can achieve consensus unless we agree that abusing
> well-defined URI schemes for abstract URIs is a bad practice.

Here here. But then, we seem to be a minority (though that doesn't
mean we're not right ;-)

> If it's
> abstract and does not point to anything, use a URN.

Or at least to something other than a URL. (oops, there's that
vacuous statment problem again)

> I strongly agree with a message Rick Jelliffe posted [1] in a thread on
> XPointer. In particular:
> 
>   The WWW has succeeded not because URIs give us the ability
>   to abstractly identify any resource (which is not a bad thing) but
> because
>   the resources could be downloaded.  The bits before the ":"  are
>   the key to the success of URLs, not the bits after.
> 
> Let's not ruin those things that have made the web successful as we chase
> after the semantic web.

I fully agree. URLs are for accessing bits.

We need to use other URI schemes to augment the web in order
to achieve the semantic web.

The whole namespace bruhaha is directly due, I think, to
overloading the function of namespace URIs.

Cheers,

Patrick 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@n...

• References:
  • RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
    • From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SOAP-RPC and REST and security
• Next by Date: Re: RE: SOAP-RPC and REST and security
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Next by thread: RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread