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

Re: URI schemes vs. URN namespaces

From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 17:52:13 -0400
To: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: W3C URI List <uri@w3.org>, Norman Paskin <n.paskin@doi.org>, Larry Lannom <llannom@cnri.reston.va.us>, "Sun, Sam X." <ssun@cnri.reston.va.us>
Message-id: <3918888D.D293377A@thinkingcat.com>

Ray Denenberg wrote:
> namespace. My question was, on what basis do they make that decision; is it
> completely arbitrary?  I gather (from your message) that you don't necessarily
> think it's completely arbitrary, that there will be characteristics of a scheme
> that will help guide that determination, for example handle has a complete
> resolution protocol which would argue for a URI scheme while a less
> well-developed system might want to avail itself of some of the URN resolution
> infrastructure, which would argue for a URN namespace.  Is this on the right
> track? 

This is pretty much what I was getting at.

I would perhaps phrase it slightly differently -- organizations which
don't need to develop end-to-end protocols can leverage the 
URN infrastructure, etc.

> This is helpful (if it's accurate) but I think this sort of discussion
> needs to be formally documented and some guidelines developed.

In principle, yes; in practice -- I don't believe we have enough
practice to yet to be very detailed or firm in guidelines.



"My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 17:53:47 UTC

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