W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2000

Re: URI equivalence, URI's for "standard" identifiers

From: Eric Hellman <eric@openly.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:03:20 -0500
Message-Id: <v04220814b4b25f0a0d81@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ron Daniel <RDaniel@DATAFUSION.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
As was mentioned on the list, there is an identifiers meeting coming 
up next week in Paris; we'll have a representative there.

So assuming that the owners of the various identifiers wanted to do 
the "right thing", what, in the opinion of the rdf interest list, 
would be the "right thing"?

My initial question was to ask if a standard practice had emerged, 
I'm assuming now that the answer is "no".


At 10:11 AM -0600 1/24/00, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Ron Daniel wrote:
>  >
>  > Dan Connolly is almost correct when he says:
>  >
>  > > There's no reason to indirect via a urn: prefix.
>  > >       isbn:nnnn
>  > > is perfectly valid URI syntax[1], provides all the necessary
>  > > information,
>  > > and has been in use since Nov 1991. I hope the folks that acutally
>  > > own and operate the ISBN social process endorse this practice soon
>  > > and register isbn: with IANA.
>  > >
>  > [Ron Daniel]  There is no particular technical reason to
>  > prefer urn:isbn over isbn:. However, the former is the
>  > syntax the IETF's working group decided upon,
>If you're referring to the URN WG, that WG wasn't chartered
>to design all URI schemes; just the one that starts with urn:
>It seems to me an entirely open question where the ISBN folks put their
>stuff in URI space.
>  > based strongly
>  > on the requests of the major browser vendor at the time.
>If you have a pointer to that request, I'd really appreciate
>it if you'd spare me the time to look it up.
>I don't understand why it makes a difference to a browser
>vendor where this stuff goes in URI space; browsers are supposed
>to have extensible support for new URI schemes in any case,
>and at least two of them do.
>c.f. http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#hack-schemes
>  > Personally, I agree with Dan that the urn: prefix is not
>  > strictly necessary. But that prefix is actually a religious
>  > issue (that is, it is a matter of taste rather than clear
>  > technical merit) and is a known rathole. So professionally I
>  > try to stick to the standard and not reopen old discussions.
>This discussion may be long-standing, but I do not see that it
>is decided. If you do, please cite a source.
>Dan Connolly

Eric Hellman
Openly Informatics, Inc.
http://www.openly.com/           21st Century Information Infrastructure
LinkBaton: Your Shortcuts to Information  http://linkbaton.com/
Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 15:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:28 UTC