- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:00:42 -0600
- To: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-url@imc.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Karen R. Sollins wrote: > Hence there is a certain burden of > proof on the proposer of an identification (URN) namespace that does > not hold true for a location (URL) namespace. Hmm... OK, if there are some process rules that we believe will result in more persistent, reliable names, then it's worth writing them down. I think it's a contractual issue, and not worth specifying in a technical sense. But that's just my intuition, and in the case of process, the relevant question is whether the participants of the IETF are willing to standardize some contractual properites. It seems that you/they/we are, so away we go... But it seems perfectly feasible, to me, for the connection between a URI and this URN process contract to be outside the identifier itself. That is, rather than URN:ISBN:4534-345-345 which syntactically binds the name to the URN process contract, it seems sufficient to write ISBN:23423-234-234 and have the ISBN scheme specification say "this scheme conforms to the URN process contract." If not, please somebody explain why not, and write it up in a spec, and let's review it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead <connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
Received on Friday, 28 March 1997 16:00:51 UTC