Lists Home |
Date Index |
"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
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