W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

RE: [Minutes] 14 Apr 2003 TAG teleconf (... namespaceDocument-8 )

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:05:55 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC1B7@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Paul Denning'" <pauld@mitre.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Cc: "Pulvermacher,Mary K." <PULVER@mitre.org>, "Scarano,James G." <jgs@mitre.org>

A URN is machine processable.  It is a string just as 
a URL.  It is not web system processable unless mapped. 
Software for such exists and where it is does not, 
is not difficult to create.

The point of the URN that should be emphasized is 
maintenance.  While the emphasis may seem subtle or 
obvious, it is nonetheless the point of URN application 
just as it is for any formal public identifier. 
This is not an architectural issue; it is a policy 
issue and as such, is not in need of TAG guidance. 
It is a technical side effect that has to be 
understood by any organization, governmental or 
private, that must control name assignments.

len bullard


From: Paul Denning [mailto:pauld@mitre.org]

The DoD has the DoD XML Registry [2], which has recently placed access 
restrictions so documents may not be generally available anymore.  They 
have a concept of "namespaces", which refers to communities of 
interest.  For example, Aerospace Operations (AOP) is one namespace, which 
had published some guidelines [3].  At one point they were considering 
using URNs, then were considering registering a new URI scheme 
"xmlns".  Based on [4], they are reconsidering this approach.  They are 
monitoring the W3C TAG for guidance.
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 09:18:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT