Lists Home |
Date Index |
> From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:email@example.com]
> (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:.
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. If it's
abstract and does not point to anything, use a URN.
I strongly agree with a message Rick Jelliffe posted  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
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.