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: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:45:42 +0200
To: "Rdf-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000901c3454e$d95444d0$0501a8c0@ZION>

I think a new top level domain is not needed, because HUMANS that use
systems I build will have to remember the domain names and I think
teaching a child "this is yahoo.com" makes enough stating where to find
the information about the concept "yahoo.com" (see plato / Parmenides of
Elea).
this is the first time in humankind that a NAME is the MEANING of it and
this is fine.

having two different things kills the human readable factor. and it is
no good design, programmers SENSE tells you to avoid redundancy.

USE OWL !!!
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/#sameIndividualAs
and you are done with changes.


THINK OF ROLLOUT PROBLEM
people have webservers and can easily create a few more scripts for
throwing out RDF. just a new path. thats how I would do it and how it
will probably work, together with embedding RDF in HTML. Uriqa is fine,
also f.e. Joseki. Install Joseki !

I am opposed to major changes if you can make it runnung with existing
things and well, we have the task to try it out with existing technology
and see what happens.

btw: humans hate change.

I can't tell a solution to the problem of domains but I am building
something that is based on the idea "only use URIs that are ALWAYS a
URL" and this approach is fine for me.

greetings
Leo Sauermann

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> Cc: dehora@eircom.net; uri@w3.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates 
> all need for urn: URIs 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > *nothing* needs to
> > change to put my proposal into use.
> 
> The problem I see is how you make a domain name, even issn.iana.org,
> stable.  It seems totally possible that 5 years from now iana will
> change its name, and politcal winds will make it really, really want
> to change issn.iana.org to issn.joePoliticanMemorialIANA.org.   
> 
> Or someone could forget to pay the bills.  I've lost a domain that
> way.  I pushed pretty hard and was assured that even verisign couldn't
> get its own domain back (unless trademark law applied) if it forgot to
> pay the bill on time.  And it's not only individuals who forget to pay
> bills (I'm thinking of microsoft forgetting to pay for hotmail.com).
> 
> Presumably, if enough was built on the exact name, there would be
> enough of a back presure that the domain could not be taken away, but
> ... it's a concern.   
> 
>     -- sandro
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 08:45:28 GMT

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