W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need for urn: URIs

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:51:11 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B02630162@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <GK@ninebynine.org>, <dehora@eircom.net>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 07 July, 2003 16:05
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); dehora@eircom.net
> Cc: uri@w3.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need
> for urn: URIs
> 
> 
> At 12:38 07/07/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > > But if you insist on going forward, then:
> > >
> > >   http://urn.X.Y/
> > >
> > > is a sufficient hack.
> >
> >I think it's a rather elegant solution, not really a hack. It
> >simply uses the existing domain and subdomain name registration
> >infrastructure, guidelines, and general practices to partition
> >the URI space into distinct managed subsets, which is what the
> >urn: URI scheme is intended to do.
> >
> >But it does so in a manner that exploits the deployed HTTP
> >infrastructure rather than require further machinery for URI
> >resolution.
> >
> >Had someone thought of this approach back when URNs were first
> >being concieved, we'd probably have countless such HTTP-URNs
> >in use today.
> 
> FWIW, I've been doing something like this for a while, cf.
> 
>     http://id.ninebynine.org/
>     http://id.mimesweeper.com/

Right. The key difference in my proposal is that for any
given urn: URI, you'd have no less degree of opacity in
its corresponding HTTP-URN. 

But technically, there is no difference. Both are simply
more persistent, more opaque names that are mapped to
less persistent, less opaque names.

> The latter is interesting in that I did (at the time) get a 
> commitment from 
> higher management that the URI space designated would be held 
> immune from 
> re-use for any other purpose.  So far, it seems to have held 
> through a 
> change of company ownership and my own transfer to other pastures.

Exactly. Having a domain root that is controlled by the same
organization that manages the urn: subscheme registration
alleviates the danger and worry of preserving the integrity
of the namespaces.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
I 
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 09:51:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:00 GMT