This really puzzles me, because I thought http referred to a protocol:
hypertext transfer protocol. And when you put "http://"; in front of
something you are indicating that you are sending the following string
along to be processed by that protocol. It implies a certain application
over the web, just as "mailto:"; implies a particular application. Yes,
"http" is the URI for the hypertext transfer protocol. That doesn't
negate the fact that it indicates a protocol. My reading of Cool URIs is
that they use the protocol, not just the URI. If they weren't intended
to take advantage of http then W3C would have used something else as a
URI. Read through the Cool URIs document and it's not about identifiers,
it's all about using the *protocol* in service of identifying. Why use
http? Here's what it says:
"1. Be on the Web.
Given only a URI, machines and people should be able to retrieve a
description about the resource identified by the URI from the Web.
Such a look-up mechanism is important to establish shared
understanding of what a URI identifies. Machines should get RDF data
and humans should get a readable representation, such as HTML. The
standard Web transfer protocol, HTTP, should be used."
It's using the *protocol*. Now, you can argue that W3C should NOT be
doing this, but it is clear to me that they are not seeking out the
*pure* identifiers that Mike Taylor talks about, but are creating
something quite different.
I just don't see how you can use the URI that indicates a particular
protocol and claim that it doesn't really mean what it says it means.
kc
Ross Singer wrote:
My point is that I don't see how they're different in practice.
And one of them actually allowed you to do something from your email client.
-Ross.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
Ross, I don't get your point. My point was about the confusion between two
things that begin: http:// but that are very different in practice. What's
yours?
kc
Ross Singer wrote:
Your email client knew what do with:
info:doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x ?
doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x ?
Or did you recognize the info:doi scheme and Google it?
Or would this, in case of 99% of the world, just look like gibberish
or part of some nerd's PGP key?
-Ross.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
Ross Singer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
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://.
But you do if it starts with http://dx.doi.org
No, *I* don't. And neither does my email program, since it displayed it
as a
URL (blue and underlined). That's inside knowledge, not part of the
technology. Someone COULD create a web site at that address, and there's
nothing in the URI itself to tell me if it's a URI or a URL.
The general convention is that "http://"; is a web address, a location. I
realize that it's also a form of URI, but that's a minority use of http.
This leads to a great deal of confusion. I understand the desire to use
domain names as a way to create unique, managed identifiers, but the http
part is what is causing us problems.
John Kunze's ARK system attempted to work around this by using http to
retrieve information about the URI, so you're not just left guessing.
It's
not a question of resolution, but of giving you a short list of things
that
you can learn about a URI that begins with http. However, again, unless
you
know the secret you have no idea that those particular URI/Ls have that
capability. So again we're going beyond the technology into some human
knowledge that has to be there to take advantage of the capabilities. It
doesn't seem so far fetched to make it possible for programs (dumb, dumb
programs) to know the difference between an identifier and a location
based
on something universal, like a prefix, without having to be coded for
dozens
or hundreds of exceptions.
kc
I still don't see the difference. The same logic that would be
required to parse and understand the info: uri scheme could be used to
apply towards an http uri scheme.
-Ross.
--
-----------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------
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
------------------------------------
