But shouldn't we be able to know the difference between an identifier and a locator? Isn't that the problem here? That you don't know which it is if it starts with http://.

kc

Houghton,Andrew wrote:
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:58 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
[CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)

I realize this is pretty much a dead-end debate as everyone has dug
themselves into a position and nobody is going to change their mind. It
is a
philosophical debate and there isn't a right answer.  But in my opinion
....

Often it is portrayed as a philosophical debate, but it's about standards.
Nothing in RFC 3986 says that any URI scheme should be made or is
resolvable.  A URI with an HTTP scheme is just as good as a URI with any
other scheme.  URIs are just identification tokens.  Resolvability or
dereference is about the use of URI.

Why? Because it drives me nuts to see http URIs everywhere that give
all appearances of resolvability - browsers, editors, etc. turn them into clickable links.

This happens with info URIs too.  Show a person an info URI an tell them
that it’s a URI, and they might swipe the text and try to resolve it in
their favorite browser.  It doesn't help when there browser spits back
"unknown URI scheme".  They will probably just go off an Goggle it.

The argument that info URIs are not resolvable, just doesn't mean that
someone will not try to resolve it in their browser.  Resolvability,
like persistence, is a policy statement about a URI.


Andy.




--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

Reply via email to