On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Rob Sanderson <azar...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:

> If you want an identifier that *explicitly* cannot be dereferenced, then
> info URIs are a good choice.  If you want one that can be dereferenced
> to some representation of the identified object, then HTTP is the only
> choice.

Yes, I completely agree with this, which is why I think it *has* to be
no problem that both info:uris and http uris can co-exist.

I'm not entirely sure of the use case of identifiers that cannot be
derefenced, I mean, I'm sure they exist (driver's license numbers,
might be an example), but I don't see anything in the current info:uri
registry wouldn't necessarily be better served with an HTTP uri.


Reply via email to