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: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:40:13 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBBFA@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <dehora@eircom.net>, <uri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 08 July, 2003 14:52
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> 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.   

Which is why I proposed a top level domain.

Still, something like urn.org would be just fine. There's very
little chance, I think, that any future organizational change
would impact the legal/political/etc. significance of that name,
and it's hardly much more informative than "urn:".

Still, .urn would be the safest bet, IMO, if it could be pulled off.

> 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).

Well, I wouldn't expect this particular domain to be commercially
owned or managed. Hence the idea of a top level domain. Noone is
paying to own '.org' or '.com' or '.net' (even if they may be 
charging others to own/maintain subdomains below them).
 
> 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.   

I agree. And it's one that can be addressed, I think, quite
nicely with a special tld .urn which is owned and managed by
the same organizational body that manages urn: subscheme
registration -- and is guarunteed perpetuity by the powers that
be...

Maybe that's a pipe dream, but I'd be very surprised if it was
beyond the real of possibility.

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 04:40:17 GMT

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