W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2012

RE: [apps-discuss] how to use non-URI registered identifiers when URIs are needed (for RDF)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:33:40 -0700
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E36C368B1@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
If the TAG proceeds with the "uri usage primer", as I noted in

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg07636.html

If you want a URI for a "link relation" (Or any other IETF-defined IANA-registered term),
I recommend using the "urn:ietf" URN namespace.

I believe the URI usage primer should include recommending using URNs for
values that are curated by external authorities such as registries.

Note that registerProtocolHandler can be used to establish a URN "resolver",
And such a resolver could use the iana.org web site as providing
a "landing page" for the registry values.



From: John Arwe [mailto:johnarwe@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:28 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Erik Wilde
Subject: RE: [apps-discuss] how to use non-URI registered identifiers when URIs are needed (for RDF)

> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uri-usage-primer-2012-10-03/


Thanks for the ptr Larry.  I monitor the TAG work products page and (checking again) did not see it there.
>From a quick skim, the draft seems not to obviously address this question - did you have a specific section relevant to the discussion?

It seems to boil down to "documentation" (again: quick skim), whereas I'm asking: given a non-URI identifier for an IANA link relation type, how can I re-use the definition without defining my own vocabulary URI (which leads to the Tower of Babel problem - many URIs for the same concept).  When ATOM defined the correspondence between registered shortnames in the IANA registry and an IANA URI, good netizens had the ability to simply use the corresponding IANA URI.  When Web Linking took over the link relation registry, this mapping was intentionally dropped.

It's far from obvious to me why dropping that mapping was good for the net.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages<http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe>
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 18:34:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 18:34:11 GMT