W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Should tags be URNs? (was Re: Proposal: 'tag' URIs)

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:46:48 +0100
Message-ID: <004201c0d00b$5dacd780$04dc93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Tim Kindberg" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
> I need help here, but it seems to me that there should be a notion
> of an 'original binding': I mint a tag and I bind that tag to a
resource
> that I own, in such a way that that resource will only ever appear
> with that tag.

Speaking more from an SW point of view, URIs are only *ever* defined
by their particular implementation(s); the problem with using HTTP to
identify a concept is that the schema associated with that particular
URI by "GET" will almost certainly go out of date once the
implmentation of the URI gets tweaked and evolved. Now, this shouldn't
be the case because one should use new URIs as soon as the concept
changes... but pragmatically, and even theoretically speaking, this is
not the case.

There is no concept of "original binding", only "proprietary binding".
URIs are fully opaque in that anyone can use them for anything, but it
is the widely (globally) agreed upon implementation of them that makes
the difference. By registering "tag" as an RFC, you are simply seeking
that global acceptance, not a standard for all time and space - that
is impossible. Actually, I wrote an excellent note about this to
xml-dev a while back... ah, at [1].

[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200103/msg01053.html

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2001 13:48:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:29 GMT