Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > >... > > I keep running into the "Web Architecture" being what it is. I've yet > to find out what the criteria for changing the Web Architecture might > be, or any sign that arguing against these (IMHO, weak) foundations has > any hope of success. You're right that it is an uphill battle arguing for fundamental architectural change in the most successful information system in history. I think that it could be done if you showed a clear enough flaw in a clear enough way to sway many people. But I don't see how one would get consensus on a change while there are so many diverse views on the issue of URIs and the views are so abstract and hard to falsify. > However much everyone argues, URIs remain the same unchanging black > hole. I see a lot of people heading off to their own corner to build > systems which use URIs (or ignore them in favor of QNames) however they > see fit - and less and less chance of making the systems share a common > understanding. I agree with that but I'm surprised to hear you say it. I don't really understand your philosophy of standardization. > The W3C TAG at least shows some strong signs of interest in keeping > things brought to them coherent. I'll be curious to see how they > interact with the black hole of URIs over time. URIs are primarily a conversational black hole. In terms of actual practice they work quite well. I have had few practical problems with them. Paul Prescod
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format