I agree using HTTP URIs is not good practice in any environment where people might expect to dereference them. For a purely local system, though, you would be the only one inconvenienced, and you could always add a web server to provide that service later, if you felt the need for it.
Otherwise, a different URI scheme is the answer. What I usually use in such cases is the "tag:" URI scheme: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4151 On 24 May 2018 at 00:31, Laura Morales <[email protected]> wrote: > I could do that, but can it be considered good practice? Other approaches > are > > - make my own URI scheme, for example <mydocs:name/doc1> > - make my own URN NID like <urn:mydocs:doc1> but NIDs are supposed to be > registered > - the info: scheme has been deprecated, so I should not use > <info:mydocs/doc1> > > I don't think RDF is providing any "best practices" suggestions or > guidelines for a scenario like this, and it's pretty frustrating because > not all data need to be dereferenceable and not all data need to have a > universally unique ID such as ISBN or telephone number... > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 3:26 PM > From: ajs6f <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Nodes without dereferenceable URIs > Can you use HTTP URIs that simply don't point to an actual server? (E.g. > http://lauras.namespace/blah/blah/blah) > > If no one tries to dereference them, it's fine if they don't work. If > someone might try to dereference them, that's when you might have problems. > -- Conal Tuohy http://conaltuohy.com/ @conal_tuohy +61-466-324297
