Re: Announcement: The "info" URI scheme

On 2003-10-02 08:37, "ext Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> wrote:


> I've been pretty happy with the rule of thumb that says:
> 
> Namespaces whose definitions are: "there is an authority,
> and the authority says what the name means"
> should be URN namespaces.
> Other namespaces where there is an operational definition
> for how to interpret the URI (independent of how the URI
> might get assigned) can be new URI schemes. The value of
> a new URI scheme depends on the clarity and likelihood
> of implementation of the operational interpretation.
> 
> I wouldn't mind instituting a new rule-of-thumb that URI
> scheme proposals should come with examples of implementations
> of the operational definitions.
> 
> What do you think of my proposed 'rules of thumb'?

I don't see why all of the above cannot be addressed using
http: URIs. The management/authority characteristics can
be captured along various lines: by dns ownership, by
server-internal management structure, and the issue of
who gets to say what some URI means can be equally well
addressed within an http: URI context as in a URN context,
with the added benefit in the latter case of having the
infrastructure in place to resolve those http: URIs if
and as required.

Patrick