On 22 Aug 2007, at 00:58, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
Since this dialog is playing out on several fronts and I would like
the dissenting view well-articulated, I've taken the liberty to flesh
out the (previously empty) "HTTP URIs are not Without Expense" Wiki
(http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/HCLS_URI_matrix/HttpUrisAreExpensive).
I've moved it to a top level location (instead of /topic/HCLS):
I have no preferences about organization, just as long as there's a
list I can find :)
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HttpUrisAreExpensive
I also included links (in context) to the URN registries finding and
the AWWW document.
Thanks Chimezie! Lots of good stuff in there.
I replaced the list in the generics tool page a pointer to this page
and deleted the backlink.
As it reads now, however, it's clearly an advocacy page (though
advocacy for what I'm not sure; probably for "not recommending that
people only use http uris" which I've supported). But moving
disputation from the mailing list to the Wiki doesn't really change
the dynamic! (Though it can be helpful by providing a canonical spot
for an argument.)
So, what is in dispute:
1) I think there is dispute about whether HTTP uris are expensive,
or whether their expense is (typically) a problem
For example, David raised this point:
<http://www.w3.org/mid/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
" Yes, some may view the cost of minting dereferenceable URIs as too
high in
some situations, but I think the ubiquity of the web shows that very
many will view the cost of publishing dereferenceable URIs as low enough
-- and probably still falling -- to be outweighed by the benefits."
2) I think there is dispute about how to handle cases where the
expense is burdensome
And the expense can fall on different people. For example, it can be
expensive for a data provider to migrate to an HTTP uri scheme but
that might be very helpful to tool builder or data users.
Providing a "public trust" publishing and (http) URI minting site
can help lower the costs for a data provider (such as Jane)
(biordf.org comes to mind; as do PURLs).
So one way to handle the issue in the recommendation is to say
"Consider using foo or bar service, at least for providing a mapping,
when the burden of providing your own HTTP uri space is too high."
If there is an automagical, coordinated mapping from URNs to HTTP
uris (either as replacement or by description) then one might get the
best of both worlds (at the cost of having a trusted mediator)
So the first is a dispute about whether there are cases where http
uris are significantly more expensive than the alternative (or for
which cases this is true). The second is a dispute about various
proposals (e.g., recommend that such people use such and such an URN
scheme, etc.)
If I were refactoring that issue discussion page, I would present 1
as a matter of research and present 2 as a series of proposals (with
pros and cons).
There's a related issue, esp if it is recommended that people only
use HTTP uris. Michel asked:
<http://www.w3.org/mid/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
" How do I make statements about these
resources, without taking the responsibility of serving it up in my own
namespace [4], which might ultimately not integrate with content from
another 3rd party content provider."
This is a question about legacy identifier schemes where there is an
owner, or at least a popular source, of data using the identifer.
Should one lobby the data provider to switch over? To provide
mappings? To use a resolver/mapping/mediator service? Can one just do
this on one's own? As a third party?
Cheers.
Bijan.
