W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: [Fwd: Re: Approval of initial Dublin Core Interoperabiity Qualifiers]

From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:21:39 -0400
Message-ID: <3912CAE0.D1F83CCC@rs8.loc.gov>
To: W3C URI List <uri@w3.org>
CC: Norman Paskin <n.paskin@doi.org>, Larry Lannom <llannom@CNRI.Reston.Va.US>, "Sun, Sam X." <ssun@CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
Leslie Daigle wrote:

>         c) URN is well-defined: there is a URI scheme, URN:,  ......

> Thus, hdl: ...... can be one or both of:
>         1. a URI scheme ...
>         2. a URN: namespace (i.e., carried in URNs).

Both the "one" and the "both", of "one or both", trouble me.

For the "one" scenario: thus the handle folks (CNRI) need to decide whether to
register hdl: as a URI scheme or a URN namespace.  Assuming that hdl fulfils
the characteristics of a URN, on what basis do they make this choice?  And
let's say they decide to register it as a URN namespace, and then another
company develops a scheme that similarly meets the URN characteristics but
registers it as a URI scheme. Won't this cause confusion?

For the "both" scenario: I'm afraid I don't understand how it could be
registered as both; or, I suppose I understand *how* it could, but not *why*.


Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
Received on Friday, 5 May 2000 09:23:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:01 UTC