Re: Proposal: 'tag' URIs

> Two examples of tags are tag:hpl.hp.com/1:tst.12345
> and tag:sandro@w3c.org/2-4:my-dog.

Personally, I liked "tann:" as a scheme name; "tag:" is a very general
scheme name, and I can forsee it wanting to be used again someday
(maybe it has already been specified in some proprietary software).
However, "tann:" is fairly unique, as far as I can tell.

Apart from that, plus the fact that a URN would probably be better for
this (notwithstandig the mapping capabilities), it's a very good idea.
One small suspect piece from the draft:-

>     If it obtains assignment of extremelyunlikelytobeassigned.org
>     on 2001/5/1, then it must not mint tags under extremelyunlike
>     lytobeassigned.org/1 unless it has found substantial evidence
>     that that name was continuously unassigned between 2001/1/1
>     and 2001/5/1.

I think that if you cannot prove that you owned a certain domain or
email address on a ceratin date, then you MUST not be using it,
because there's nothing to stop other people using the same space. For
example, *if* I owned "eutba.org" from 2-3 to 2-5 and then someone
else picked it up on 2-7, I could claim that I could use the 2-6
dates, and so could the new owner... the 2-6 dates should all be void.
This should be true for any coverage or period of time, no matter how
small. If you didn't own it on /1, then you can't use it.

P.S. Are DNS records of who owned a domain throughout time kept
somewhere? Otherwise, one would have a difficult time proving that
they owned a certain domain ten years ago, or whatever.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .