W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2006

RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:45:55 -0700
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C021AE1CA@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

Marty,

You asked "Can TAG members please clarify if their gripes about XRI
would dissolve if XRIs begin with "http://xri.net" instead of "xri://",

Formally, the TAG consensus is that the answer to that question is
"Yes", with a reminder that the Web Architecture says "A URI owner
SHOULD provide representations of the resource it identifies" in [1].

Cheers,
Dave Orchard, for the W3C TAG

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-describe-resource

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 11:51 AM
> To: Schleiff, Marty; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries
> 
> 
> I think http://xri.net identifiers instead of xri:// would be 
> absolutely wonderful.  
> 
> I had hoped that the finding, particularly section 5, would 
> show that http://xri.net identifiers have same or better 
> value than xri:// identifiers.  Do you think we should 
> provide more detail to suggest using http://myri.org identifers?
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> > Of Schleiff, Marty
> > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:43 PM
> > To: www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries
> > 
> > 
> <snip/>
> > As you can probably tell, I'm not as opposed as I used to be about 
> > using
> > http: for XRIs. In earlier discussions and examples I kept hearing 
> > that there is no need for XRI because everything can be done with 
> > http, but none of the examples were satisfying to me (or 
> others on the 
> > OASIS XRI TC). Now I'm hearing that one way to do what XRI does in 
> > http is to just use something like "http://xri.net" instead of 
> > "xri://" and keep all the functionality specified for 
> "<rest_of_XRI>". 
> > Such an approach is much less distasteful to me than saying 
> there is 
> > no need for XRI because everything can be done in http. Can TAG 
> > members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would dissolve if 
> > XRIs begin with "http://xri.net"
> > instead of "xri://"?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0037.html
> > [2] http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
> > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0024.html
> > 
> > 
> > Marty.Schleiff
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 19:47:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT