W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2004

Re: info scheme has no authority component, why?

From: <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:20:07 -0500
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040315202007.GR3816@skunk.reutershealth.com>

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress scripsit:

> But nobody (person or agent) has the authority to coins an info:lccn
> uri.  A given string either is or isn't one: if it is of the form
> 'info:lccn/xxx' and there exists an lccn that normalizes to 'xxx' then
> it is, if not it isn't. And in the latter case, in the future when
> such an lccn does exists then that string becomes an info:lccn uri
> automatically, upon assignment of the lccn.  So I'm not sure what an
> authority component adds.

You talk as if LCCNs grew on trees, literally.  The authority to coin an
info:lccn URI is one and the same with the authority to assign the
corresponding LCCN, just as is the case with urn:isbn URIs, since the
meaning of the URI is tied to the meaning of the "number".  In effect, then,
the authority component of LCCNs is "lccn".

Evolutionary psychology is the theory           John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs,             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and that women only want them for their money.  http://www.reutershealth.com
        --Susan McCarthy (adapted)              jcowan@reutershealth.com
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 15:20:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC