Hi Anne, > Hmmm ... > > A namespace URI is a name. Is "Sanjiva" evil? It seems pretty flat to > me, unstructured, and unresolvable wthout global knowledge. But it > seems to work pretty well. Pretty much everyone working in this space > can recognize and resolve the name "Sanjiva". The reason I like URNs > is that they aren't resolvable, and therefore it's clear that they > are, in fact, names.
Ah I see your reasoning. OTOH you, with your built in semantic (Web ;-)) processor (aka your brain) know how to associate semantics/information to names intelligently. The advantage of making namespace names resolvable is to provide the really brain-dead, as dumb, browser-like software to deliver some (potentially semantic) information about the namespace name to the user. Without that ability, its just a flat opaque string and that's it. > But that's just my opinion. Who am I to argue with the likes of TimBL > and Tim Bray? :-) I didn't follow all the religious debate on this topic that happened on the TAG mailing list but I know it was far from a decision that was arrived at quickly or easily. I'm pretty should Tim Bray was for it (after all he's the/a driver of RDDL) but I'm certain you're in distinguished company. Sanjiva.
