Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
If you need an additional system to fix the meaning of the URI (to make it a word), you are adding a system to a system. At this point, it quits being Web architecture and starts being Todd architecture. A URI can identify, not classify. To make it classify, it needs an additional *coding system* for assigning meaning. In this sense, it becomes a URN (if not syntactically, then by coding implementation). Not distinguising these is what makes the understanding of the web architecture confusing. Any time you have a semantic URI, you have a system on a system. Berners-Lee stumbled because of calling this a two-level system and thinking it unnecessary. It is very necessary. len -----Original Message----- From: Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III [mailto:winchel@m...] If practical experience matters, I have implemented a system where we use URIs as namespaces and (1) the URIs have (domain-specific) meaning and (2) there are a number of (fixed) resources at the end of the URIs. I find there are a great number of advantages to this system. This is not to say that namespaces that are URIs *must* have meaning or have (fixed) resource(s) at the end of them (that would be contrary to the spec, after all), it is simply to say that if you do so and can get others to follow the system, there are benefits.
|
