Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

At 12:32 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
>Are you sure it suffices? The IANA is no longer at that site and that
>URL will sease to function soon. If you want a permanent URI for that
>concept take a look at these two documents:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-iana-urn-01.txt
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-urn-ietf-lang-00.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-urn-ietf-conneg-00.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-urn-ietf-rfc822-00.txt
>
>the last one being the one you want...

Er, actually, the last one provides a URI identifer for the "Content-type" 
amnd other message headers, but doesn't provide URIs for Content-type 
values -- this proposal is aimed at being able to convey message metadata 
in formats like RDF.  For an example of anticipated use, see 
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-message-rfc822-xml-02.txt.

However, this does illustrate the basic idea:  values in an existing 
registry or framework of definition can be mapped into URI space;  it would 
be easy enough to do this for basic Content-type values.

(However, I understand that there are some additional requirements that the 
cturi proposal aims to solve.  I don't see changing the URI scheme name to 
something that is part of an existing scheme would be an insuperable problem.)

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org