RE: Announcement: The "info" URI scheme

Tim,

> So, as I understand it, 'info:' is just like 'urn:' except for:
> 
> - For 'info:xxx:', NISO hands out the 'xxx'
> - There is no requirement for permanence or reference stability.
> 
> This latter is I suppose why you wouldn't want to do 'urn:info:xxx:' 
> which otherwise would work just fine.
> 
> Is that oversimplifying?

After ploughing through scads of email on this thread, I found it refreshing
to find such a well framed question. Regrettably, it seems to have gone
unanswered :-(

Regards

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] 
> Sent: 2 October 2003 18:58
> To: Roy T. Fielding
> Cc: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON); uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Announcement: The "info" URI scheme
> 
> 
> 
> So, as I understand it, 'info:' is just like 'urn:' except for:
> 
> - For 'info:xxx:', NISO hands out the 'xxx'
> - There is no requirement for permanence or reference stability.
> 
> This latter is I suppose why you wouldn't want to do 'urn:info:xxx:' 
> which otherwise would work just fine.
> 
> Is that oversimplifying?
> 
> Eric Hellman outlined, quite clearly, the notion that the 
> absence of a 
> built-in dereference mechanism is an advantage for political reasons. 
> While his sentences parse and I have to acknowledge that empirically, 
> it's possible for a human to believe this, the whole notion that an 
> identifier is better because non-dereferenceable just comes from a 
> different planet thatn the one I live on.
> 
> Like Roy says, let the market decide.
> 
> I think, though, that if the URN fans and the doi: and info: and tag: 
> people all got together in a room and came out with a reduced 
> number of 
> URI schemes, they and the community would be winners.
> -- 
> Cheers, Tim Bray (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
> 
> 
>