- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:24:32 -0400
- To: James Cerra <jfcst24_public@yahoo.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
> What is the general (i.e. your) opinion on using the "tag:" URI scheme
> <http://taguri.org/> to identify resources?
To me it's an open question. My motivation in defining tag: URIs was
to give people a place to go when they didn't want to use http URIs.
> The first issue is the usefulness of the scheme. Some people in my group
> expressed concern that they weren't an officially endorsed scheme. It is my
> understanding that "tag:" is a RFC and also officially recognized by the IETF
> .
It's in the RFC pipeline; it was approved for publication by the IESG,
but it takes a very long time to actually come out. But yes, it's
"official", in some sense.
> Are the following rules sensible?
>
> 1) If you do not have permanent control over the domain, get temporary
> permission and use a "tag:" URI. If you can't get that, use a "urn:uuid:"
> name.
Tags can be based on e-mail addresses instead of a domain names, so
you can just get a hotmail or yahoo e-mail address and use that, if
you don't have appropriate access to a domain name. I'd say UUIDs are
only good for machine generation and consumption.
> 2) If it doesn't make sense to dereference your resource, use "tag:".
One does not dereference resources, one dereferences names (URI). If
you think of dereferencing a name as giving you useful information
about the named thing, why would you ever not want to be able to do
that?
(Answer: if you don't want to have anything to do with a web server, I
guess.)
So if you really can't get http URIs to work for you, then sure, use tags.
> 3) If it doesn't have a stable location over time, use "tag:". This is why
> "file:" makes a poor choice of a scheme for resources shared with other peopl
> e.
Why would you not have a stable location over time? Domain names a
very cheap, and purl.org names are free.
> 4) If it is an ontology scheme, consider using a "http:' name. Otherwise,
> choose the scheme that makes the most sense for that domain.
Like what?
- sandro (tag co-author)
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 16:24:40 UTC