W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2003

Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 09:00:45 -0400
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, fielding@apache.org, uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1055336445.20737.36.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 06:57, John Cowan wrote:
> Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) scripsit:
> 
> > Thus I wonder if it's striclty correct
> > to imply that the term URN refers to 'urn' URIs only, and whether some
> > alternate wording could be used to say that URN refers to 'the subset of
> > URIs that provide a persistent means of naming a resource' (I'm sure Larry's
> > got a better definition) and to mention that specifically all URIs under the
> > 'urn' scheme are by this dedfinition of type 'URN'. 
> 
> I usually say, when explaining the concept, that the "news:", "mid:" and
> "cid:" schemes are conceptually URNs, although they are grandfathered
> and don't begin with "urn:".
> 
> I realize that these are deep and perilous waters.

(I wish we'd pick more meaningful subject lines...)

As one of the main original proponents of the whole 'anything that has
'name' semantics is a URN' approach, I'd like to suggest we drop this
attempt to revive that concept, even linguistically. It just doesnt' get
you anything except more confusion and will certainly drive the RDF/SW
crowds nuts. A URN is a particular URI scheme and anything beyond that
just isn't worth it....

-MM
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:06:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT