[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] naming schema
On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:27 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Serious question. Must we define URIs as opaque for all purposes? Or > is that up to the application using the URI? If we agree the answer to the second of your questions is "yes" does that not suggest that we are defining them as opaque? We are not saying how you must create URIs (or IDs); only that it doesn't matter beyond that they serve their purpose of being unique and so forth. I'll give you an example from my use case. For citations, it would be a good thing if different applications settled on using the same URI conventions for identifying citation sources. Certainly it wouldn't be necessary, but it would be nice. So how would I propose to encourage that? I would point developers to information about using URNs for ISBNs and ISSNS, the info URI schema for other bibliographic identifiers (DOIs, pudmed ids, and so forth), and tell them to use HTTP URIs for online resources. Oh, and the new WorldCat catalog can be a fantastic source for HTTP ids. But that would be nothing more than a suggested best practice. The suggestion is to encourage use of the same URIs to refer to the same things. But I am still assuming the URIs per se are opaque (their form is not intrinsically meaningful). Bruce
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]