On 21/02/2011 02:42, Andrew Patterson wrote: > Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot > look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without > looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec. > > So in the case of a 'http' URI, we can read the spec and know > what the bits mean - _for the purposes of fetching data > from web servers using HTTP_. I can't imagine how that > is possibly what is intended by putting a URI into an > archetype - we can't seriously be suggesting that everyone > who uses the archetype is all going to be descending on > some poor webserver named in the URL and fetching data > in some arbitrary format?
indeed... the original idea was that we would use some scheme space like 'terminology:xxxx'. We have use URL-like URIs in the past inn actual implementations, on the basis that we thought that one day IHTSDO or someone would finally get their act together and either decide to move to the SCT way of doing things in unison, or else define a URN scheme for everyone to use (i.e. not just SNOMED). This has not happened yet... - thomas * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110221/ddfee77c/attachment.html>
