W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 2001

RE: What is at the end of the namespace?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:05:42 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114C0B7@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: fielding@ebuilt.com
Cc: sean@mysterylights.com, www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@ebuilt.com]
> Sent: 16 November, 2001 22:40
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: sean@mysterylights.com; www-talk@w3.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What is at the end of the namespace?
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that HTTP URLs are also URNs?
> 
> No, URNs are only those URI that start with a "urn" scheme.  

I disagree.

Yes, I know that the recent "clarification" could be interpreted
to say that, but it doesn't actually *say* that ;-)

The abstract concept of URN is still a valid concept by which
to describe and classify URI schemes, and I intend to submit
I-D proposals for just such a URN scheme that compliments
the 'urn:' scheme. And one could also assert that the 'tag:'
URI scheme is a URN scheme. 

Thus, similarly, one can view PURLs as essentially being URNs
but URNs for which the agency handling the mapping to URL is
defined in the URI itself.
 
> What I said is
> that HTTP URLs are identifiers, and hence names, and 
> therefore capable of
> being a symbolic replacement for any other identifier, including URNs.

And I never said that folks *couldn't* use HTTP URLs as names,
only that they *shouldn't*, because it is IMO unreasonable to presume
that HTTP URLs would have an interpretation not in any way related
to the HTTP protocol.

Patrick
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 07:06:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT