Re II: Resolving Identifiers

[Tony Linde]

> >   1.  A third optional component is added to the identifier 
> which points
> >       to a unregistered component of a registered resource. 
>  In the URI
> >       form, this component is set off by a #.
> 
> I like this the best. It giveas arbitrary levels of detail 
> *within* the resource (except that they can't use the # 
> symbol). BUt if we take the string before the #, then we can 
> resolve it and find out what it is.

Aaarrrggghh!!

We just got through discussing and rejecting this approach for identifiers.

Tony.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metadata at us-vo.org 
> [mailto:owner-metadata at us-vo.org] On Behalf Of Roy Williams
> Sent: 12 September 2003 17:53
> To: Ray Plante; Doug Tody
> Cc: metadata at us-vo.org
> Subject: Re: Re II: Resolving Identifiers
> 
> 
> >   1.  A third optional component is added to the identifier 
> which points
> >       to a unregistered component of a registered resource. 
>  In the URI
> >       form, this component is set off by a #.
> 
> I like this the best. It giveas arbitrary levels of detail 
> *within* the resource (except that they can't use the # 
> symbol). BUt if we take the string before the #, then we can 
> resolve it and find out what it is.
> 
> Of course, that resolution may be to a private, personal 
> registry. Or there may simply be no registry or metadata, so 
> no resolution is possible.
> 
> >   3.  Global identifiers are not guaranteed to resolve at 
> any level except
> >       the namespace level.
> 
> I don't understand this point of view at all. What is the 
> point of all our infrastructure for registries if we make no 
> statement about how it is to be used? Why don't we just let 
> people use any identifier they want to. "My dataset is called 
> file.dat".
> 
> Roy
>