Re: [xml-dev] URIs harmful (was RE: [xml-dev] Article: Keeping pa ce

[Joe English]
>
> But I think I finally see where Len is going with this.
> There is an algorithm for resolving URLs; *that* is what
> makes them useful.  When RDF and XMLNS play Humpty Dumpty
> and insist that a URI means what they intend it to mean,
> nothing more and nothing less, contrary to established
> practice and common understanding, it diminishes the value
> of URLs.
>

For some reason I have not had any problem with URIs as abstract identifiers
myself, but it is obvious from all the questions and arguments on many lists
that the "established practice" argument carries a lot of weight.  So maybe
unrestricted URIs for namespace identifiers should be regarded as a
partially failed experiment.

It would probably have been better if the W3C had said that, if you want to
have a pure identifier that is not intended to give network access to a
resource, then use the w3c-ndi: scheme ("W3C Non-dereferenceable Identifer")
or some such, and to have issued an RFC that specified exactly those
semantics.

I suppose that too much would break if this were imposed now, but it could
still be phased in as a strongly recommended practice.

Or maybe there would still be a need to have namespaces point directly to
RDDL documents.  Ah, well.

Cheers,

Tom P