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

RE: URIs and Names on the Web

• To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: URIs and Names on the Web
• From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:05:46 -0700
• Thread-index: AcI2Tt2pjhzszvVRRp6CIt4I6/jVyAAKVRqg
• Thread-topic: URIs and Names on the Web

> 1) Use HTTP URIs to name whatever (i.e. the range of http is not
limited
> 2) Use HTTP URIs to name documents, but name arbitrary things as
fragments
> 3) Use URNs to name whatever
> 4) Use new top level schemes to name each new class of resource

What's wrong with #3?

> 3) URNs aren't widely used, and I can't easily publish my names using
URNs

What does that mean?  It sounds suspiciously like this argument is
saying "I can't easily use non-http URIs as http-accessible
representation dispensers"

URNs are definitely *not* widely used as http endpoints, which is
exactly as it should be.  If you want to use something as an http
endpoint, you name it as an http endpoint.  For things that are not
intended to be used as http endpoints, URNs are just as widely used as
anything else.

> or worsen the confusion? It seems to me that the arbitrary '#' is more

> confusing, so I'd like to hear a coherent, comprehensive, and easily 

I agree.

> 1) I don't have easy access to a server that do anything with any URNs
> that I might create.

Do you mean you don't have a server that runs Jenna RDF API?

Or do you mean that you don't have access to a server that accepts
non-http URIs and treats them as if they *are* http endpoints?

If the latter, maybe there is no problem.  It seems fundamentally
incorrect for a server to take things that are *not* hypermedia
representation dispenser endpoints and pretend that they are.  The
current behavior of clients (which is to assume that only URIs in the
http: scheme are used as hypermedia representation dispensers) seems
pretty reasonable.

> 2) Client software that deals with URNs is not widespread.

Right.  Client software that is capable of dealing with "hypermedia
representation dispensers" *is* widespread.  There is already widespread
support for identifiers that locate hypermedia servers.  The current
situation is great if the main thing you want to do is share location of
hypermedia representation dispensers.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs and Names on the Web
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Quick Xpath
• Next by Date: Re: On Schemas, Namespaces and Syntax vs. Semantics (longbut worth it) :)
• Previous by thread: URIs again and again ....
• Next by thread: Re: URIs and Names on the Web
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread