[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] URIs and address-as-X (MAJOR)
> Peter: > > I always meant URI. My normal form of the URI for the work I'm currently > doing is the URL, but it is clear in my mind that URIs are used throughout > BTP. As for URNs, the unique resolution of a URN to an entity must rely on > either some rules defined by the protocol within whose context > the URN sits, > or else defined by some proprietaty means. No, you meant URL. URNs do not "sit within the context of a protocol". They are unambiguous names for things. They no more tell you where something is than "UK Passport number 020011112" tells you where it or its holder is. > The fact remains: URIs can be used as a globally unambiguous naming > mechanism, whose form is defined according to the rules of the > protocol that > the particular URI is bound to, which is more conventional (i.e. > accessible > to the lay person) and loses nothing in expressiveness over the current > address+identifier scheme. I agree it is better than the current (0.9.1) address+identifier scheme. We think it is worse than the proposed 77, 78 location-unaware identifier, identification-independent address scheme. Peter ------------------------------------------ Peter Furniss Technical Director, Choreology Ltd web: http://www.choreology.com email: peter.furniss@choreology.com phone: +44 20 7670 1679 direct: +44 20 7670 1783 mobile: 07951 536168 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC