[topicmapmail] Re: Document Object Identifiers/CrossRef

[Anthony B. Coates]

** Reply to message from "Daniel Rivers-Moore" <Daniel.Rivers-Moore@rivcom.com>
on Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:30:07 +0100

> I get the feeling that the "URL rules all and nothing else is needed"
> position has somewhat lost its credibility (am I right?). But Tony
> asserts below that the W3C still "does not seem keen on widespread use
> of URNs". Why might that be? Is there a body of opinion or influence
> within or outside W3C that might move this debate forward in useful
> directions?

Personally, I don't think the W3C wants important elements of its
"Web Architecture" to be out of its control, as URNs are.  Since you
can always map a URN onto a URL (persistence of the URL
notwithstanding), there is no actual technical need for the W3C to
be inclusive about URNs.  It actually only introduces a technical
headache for them.

I think the only thing that would likely change this would be
widespread usage of URNs in spite of their preference.
However, I'm not sure that this is likely to happen, given
the high level of thought leadership that the W3C have
in this area.

	Cheers,
		Tony.
====
Anthony B. Coates, Information & Software Architect
mailto:abcoates@TheOffice.net
MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language)
http://www.mddl.org/