[auscope-geosciml] URI schemes

Stephen M Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Wed Aug 25 16:49:45 EDT 2010

On 8/22/2010 3:59 AM, Sen, Marcus A wrote:

> It is worth-while to discuss and agree some shared best-practice for naming the components of the URI path following the host part which might be shared by people in the geoscience community (or wider if possible) for the purposes of making them human-friendly.
>   Machine processing of URIs should not rely on knowledge of the path structure.
> Organisations delivering geological data may also want to supply other kinds of data with URIs which may have nothing to do with CGI standards and they probably won't want to devote a special domain to CGI only resources and may or may not be happy to name from the root part of the path information according to a CGI pattern.
>   Using a CGI specific identifying top-level part like /uri-cgi would increase the chances but not guarantee this.
sorry, chances of what?
> The idea of comparing URIs for identity by removing the host part and comparing the rest of the string is completely outside all the principles of URI use and should not be pursued.

perhaps, but what is the benefit of these principles, practically 
speaking? Is there actually a compelling reason for adhering to them?
Seems like things are more likely to break if we follow these 
'principles' than if we engineer a compatible solution that solves a 
problem (ephemeral host names...).

> Marcus

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list