[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Patrick Stickler wrote:
>
> On 2002-02-18 8:00, "ext Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> Also in item 4, you say "when you use something whose most common
> application is retrieval, and you use it to identify something which has
> supporting definitive material, it is wilfully perverse not to connect the
> retrieval function with the supporting material." which I both agree
> with, and also consider to be a good argument for not using 'http:' URIs
> for *anything* which is not intended to be HTTP GETable, including
> abstract or non-digital resources, vocabulary terms, etc. etc. This is
> a very nice argument for URPs ;-)
I agree with Patrick here. This is a good argument against using URLs as
a namespace name. Reality sides with Tim, though, as standing in the way
of widespread expectations about the resolvability of URLs used as
namespace names is like standing in front of an 18-wheel truck.
I also think that the real thrust of Patrick's argument echoes that of
the recent debate on RDDL. RDDL is a nice way to find information about
a given namespace, but it is insufficient for document processing in the
general case given the wide variation in namespace semantics that Tim
points out in item (2). That is, it may be possible to process a
document based solely on the information in various RDDL documents, but
this is unlikely to be true in general.
-- Ron
|
