[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If practical experience matters, I have implemented a system where we use
URIs as namespaces and (1) the URIs have (domain-specific) meaning and (2)
there are a number of (fixed) resources at the end of the URIs.
I find there are a great number of advantages to this system. This is not
to say that namespaces that are URIs *must* have meaning or have (fixed)
resource(s) at the end of them (that would be contrary to the spec, after
all), it is simply to say that if you do so and can get others to follow the
system, there are benefits.
One of the advantages is that in this way we have been able to "fix" meaning
in the system (to use the term loosely, we've created our own little
"semantic web"). What I find somewhat ironic/puzzling is that (1) the
system has some similarities to Microsoft's use of "namespaces" in .NET (so
I think Joshua position is a bit odd) and (2) TimBL wants to create a
"semantic web" but he is against fixing resources at the end of a URI (if my
understanding of his writing in correct).
If you think of the difference between URI and a citation (especially legal
citations) to literature, you may see some benefit.
Todd
=========================================
Winchel "Todd" Vincent III
Attorney and Technical Consultant
Project Director, E-CT-Filing Project
Georgia State University College of Law
Email: winchel@mindspring.com
Web: http://e-ct-file.gsu.edu/
|
