Re: [metadata] versions and profiles of ISO 19139

Ian, and everyone:

     I chewed over this whole tempest through a leisurely, solo lunch.

     And as I masticated, I considered the original directive given to
DARPA deep in the bowels of the Pentagon around the time that I was
born,
from which all of this (and a great deal more) has resulted.

     And it all seems consistent to me.

     At the risk of sounding pedantic, I have to repeat that the
overriding need
which brought the Internet into being was for army posts to be able  to
continue to communicate with each other IN THE EVENT THAT HQ GOT KNOCKED
OUT by nuclear blast or other means.
     It is that fact which makes it so "democratic" and so impossible
for any authority
to regulate or control.
     Sometimes we love that.  Sometimes we don't.
     But that's the way it is.  And I think it will stay that way.

     On this particular issue, I think that eventually all of us who are
building and storing and editing and displaying geographic information
metadata, will come to use
approximately (but not exactly) the same conventions, methodologies,
taxonomies, structures, etc., with the aid of published "standards"
which will never be
completely unique, precise, dogmatic and persistent, but will
nevertheless, help.

-JohnT

SCISOFT wrote:

> The more basic problem with URL's, URI's, and URN's is
> that, as Michael S-M points out, a domain name isn't permanent,
>
> it can be abandoned and then picked up by a different party.
>
> While its highly unlikely that a particular set of schemas, a
> "standard"
>
> be spoofed, (much more likely that the validator request
>
> would return a "404") its entirely possible.
>
> I’m sure this is just a small part of the significant discussions, but
> it’s very irritating.
>
> That seems to epitomise the W3C’s quagmire created by such irrelevant
> reductio ab absurbum arguments for a number of topic, which I believe
> has been worsening during the last 12 years. In some circumstances,
> pragmatism is necessary (even though XML 1.0 got some things very
> wrong – eg, name collision - that was rectified: the namespaces
> concept was introduced).
>
> Isn’t it a problem with the ‘improper’ association of URLs-URIs-URNs?
>
> The most important attribute of a namespace identifier is that it is
> unique. Authors can guarantee the uniqueness of a URL by registering a
> domain name with an Internet naming authority. Then it's the author's
> responsibility to make sure that all strings used after the domain
> name are unique. URNs work the same way.
>
> To guarantee the uniqueness of a URN, authors must again register
> their namespace identifier with an Internet naming authority. The
> author is then responsible for following a scheme for generating
> unique namespace-specific strings.
>
> Organizations defining XML namespaces should develop a consistent
> scheme for creating new namespace names.
>
> Maybe I’m simplifying or misunderstanding the strict definitions, but
> here’s a proposition that diverges significantly from the above.
>
> Although it may be imperfect compared with a strictly-formulated
> validating or registering authority, an interim system based on GUIDs
> (urn:uuid) might have been widely implemented.
>
> At any time, the W3C itself (or a commercial organization such as
> VeriSign) could have set up an interim system that equated a URN to a
> unique and permanent GUID. In the same way that the DNS system
> operates for URLs, this (interim) “GUID Authority” could have
> maintained a precisely versioned schema set for each namespace GUID
> without tying it to a URL locator.
>
> The 404 problem need not ever occur.
>
> The GUID-URI “DNS” would always maintain the simple lookup, and it
> would be a very modest-sized database. A series of status / validity /
> last changed flags could be supplement the system – so, redundant
> GUID-URNs that never “went anywhere” could just linger without dying,
> without detriment.
>
> Since there is a very large number of unique GUIDs, paradoxically I
> think that versioning and authentication is not as difficult a problem
> as with the URN, where choosing and usage of URNs is very dependent on
> the constraints of human factors.
>
> Ian Thomas
>
> GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John.Tucker [mailto:John.Tucker@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:00 PM
> To: SCISOFT
> Subject: Re: [metadata] versions and profiles of ISO 19139
>
> You are correct about that ...
>
> One part of the discussions is around
>
> different versions or profiles of the same standard ...
>
> neither the W3C nor anyone else has ever set down a standard mechanism
>
> for doing this in a namespace ...
>
> in some situations, an update which "includes" the previous version
>
> and then merely provides additions and deletions seems most
> appropriate,
>
> in some situations, putting different schema versions in the same
> namespace
>
> seems most appropriate,
>
> in some situations, a whole new namespace seem better.
>
> But there is no "standard" way to do any of these things,
>
> so schema validating processors simply don't know how to handle
>
> changing versions.
>
> The more basic problem with URL's, URI's, and URN's is
>
> that, as Michael S-M points out, a domain name isn't permanent,
>
> it can be abandoned and then picked up by a different party.
>
> While its highly unlikely that a particular set of schemas, a
> "standard"
>
> be spoofed, (much more likely that the validator request
>
> would return a "404") its entirely possible.
>
> -JohnT
>
> SCISOFT wrote:
>
> > John
>
> > I haven't followed these types of discussions, so I'd guess that
> this
>
> > suggestion ha been thrashed to death: GUIDs.
>
> > What's the problem with a unique identifier rather than a registrant
>
> > authority ?
>
> >
>
> > IL Thomas
>
> > GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: John.Tucker [mailto:John.Tucker@noaa.gov]
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2009 10:31 PM
>
> > To: SCISOFT
>
> > Subject: Re: [metadata] versions and profiles of ISO 19139
>
> >
>
> > The significance of this issue is
>
> > that we are all working towards the use of authoritative standards
> for our
>
> > metadata.
>
> > However, so far, the very nature of the InterNet is that it eschews
>
> > authority.
>
> >
>
> > Up through now, there is no way to guarantee the integrity and
> persistence
>
> > of
>
> > any resource.
>
> >
>
> > Here are the quotes that I selected
>
> > (with email addresses ... please be nice ...)
>
> >
>
> > At present, there is (unfortunately!) no service to guarantee the
> uniqueness
>
> > and persistence of URN's, Universal resource names.  "The fact that
> there is
>
> > no general URN resolution service (besides reading the relevant
> RFCs) is
>
> > highly iconvenient and pragmatically it is a killer." - Simon Cox
>
> > <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
>
> >
>
> > "The Namespace Recommendation:  It is not a goal that it be directly
> usable
>
> > for retrieval of a schema."  -Henry Thompson   <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
>
> >
>
> > "The only way to ensure safe processing [of different versions](i.e.
> that
>
> > respects *all* of the processing strategies allowed for in the XML
> schema
>
> > spec) is to be scrupulous about changing the namespace if the schema
>
> > changes."  -Simon Cox
>
> >
>
> > "But as long as domain names are allowed to be used more than once
> by
>
> > different owners, no system of unique identifiers built on the
> domain name
>
> > system actually guarantees uniqueness of identifier."  - C.M.
>
> > Sperberg-McQueen  <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
>
> >
>
> > -John Tucker
>
> >
>
> > SCISOFT wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > John
>
> > > Unfortunately afaik this list doesn't allow attachments (they get
> filtered
>
> > > out?).
>
> > > I'd like to see the quotes. Perhaps you could paste them in-line
> into an
>
> > > email to the list?
>
> > >
>
> > > IL Thomas
>
> > > GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia
>
> > >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: metadata-bounces+geoscisoft=iinet.net.au@lists.geocomm.com
>
> > >
> [mailto:metadata-bounces+geoscisoft=iinet.net.au@lists.geocomm.com] On
>
> > > Behalf Of John.Tucker
>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2009 3:36 AM
>
> > > To: metadata@lists.geocomm.com
>
> > > Subject: [metadata] versions and profiles of ISO 19139
>
> > >
>
> > >      The <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> mailing list
>
> > > is a venarable discussion group where some of the
>
> > > most luninary and faithful contributors to the XML family
>
> > > of standards still participate and contribute.
>
> > >      During the past 4 weeks or so, people including
>
> > > Simon Cox, C.M. Sperberg-McQueen, and Henry Thompson
>
> > > discussed what rules there are and what rules there aren't,
>
> > > concerning versions and profiles.
>
> > >      Since those of us aiming at ISO 19139 now anticipate
>
> > > some new versions and profiles, this subject is extremely
>
> > > relevant.
>
> > >      Without pretending to have near as much insight as those
>
> > > people, I present a few of their quotes for our consideration,
>
> > > just in case there are people on this list who have not yet
>
> > > considered the implications.  The full discussion should be in
> their
>
> > > archives and is well-recommended.
>
> > >
>
> > > -John Tucker
>