I'm not neccesarily arguing anything. I think either way _could_ work, or _could_ end up not working as well as the other one.

I think that it's harder for someone to mint an info uri without knowing what they are doing. If a uri is in the info registry, you know someone at least had to think about it.

If you just happen to find an http URI on the web.... you don't even know that someone meant to "mint a URI" at all, it might have been intended merely for resolution via the HTTP protocol.

If it _was_ intended as a URI, and controlled appropriately, then indeed it can do anything an info: URI can do, I agree.


Houghton,Andrew wrote:
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification

Houghton,Andrew wrote:
Organizations need to have a clear understanding of what they are
URIs for.

Precisely. And in the real world... they don't always have that.

Then one could contend that they should not be minting URIs, this is why they get into trouble. No clear policy on what a URI identifies,
when is it appropriate to create aliases and when URI aliases are
created making sure you use appropriate HTTP mechanisms to redirect
them or indicate that they are URI alias.  They also need to understand
the difference between URIs for Real World Objects, Generic Documents
and Web Documents.  Failure to understand these issues and you will
create a mess.

ONE of the benefits of info is that the registry process forces minters
to develop that clear understanding (to some extent), and documents it
for later users.  There are also other pros and cons.

Right, but your argument seems to be that you have all these HTTP URIs
so rather than sort it out, using appropriate standards based mechanisms,
lets create yet another URI to add to all the other URI aliases?


Reply via email to