Why identify information assets with URIs anyway?
<< The real need for presenting legacy identifiers in URI form is that many Web-based description technologies (e.g. XLink, RDF, Topic Maps, OpenURL, SRU/W) recognize URIs as the only form of globally unique identifier. Besides this, the URI naming architecture offers to identifiers a common base syntax, a common base semantics, and a common nomenclature for talking about identifier constructs (e.g. URIs reference "resources" while generally identifiers for information assets will reference diverse kinds of things - objects, records, etc.). The URI thus provides a uniform (and unifying) naming architecture for identifiers. The examples FAQ included here might afford some insight into the desirability of rendering identifiers as URIs, cf. the identifiers in their native form and as rendered in URI form.
