- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:25:40 -0400
- To: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, michaelm@netsol.com, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
At 10:40 AM 2001-04-28 -0700, Tim Kindberg wrote: > >So, Michael and everyone else: should tags be URNs? > Maybe so, maybe no. There is the prior question of "Should 'tag' URI's _be_?" You may find that there is enough use of other things such as LDAP Distinguished Names so that this proposal never gains a critical mass of use. I would say that the way one would use a 'tag' has been inadequately developed so far. The activities that handle tags should be identified, in particular where they yield benefits, and where one is investing effort in creating them. The 'requirements' are unconvincing without this. If you review the current popular uses of real tags, a common function of tags is to enable relative strangers to associate an article with its proper context. If your encoding is not supported by a lookup service, it may not be used. Competing symbolizations that _are_ supported by a lookup service may be used enough more so that your encoding will be buried and forgotten. The choice between LDAP and URN is debatable. But at least LDAP is a viable option. LDAP DNs already embody precisely the same "<who> calls <the item in question> <what>" logic as the 'tag' proposal. Al
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 10:23:23 UTC