Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:17:13 -0500


Message-Id: <199710261917.OAA22331@spot.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>,
Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 26 Oct 1997 10:28:23 PST."
             <34538BC7.6DBB1281@parc.xerox.com> 
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:17:13 -0500

> As it stands, I'd just as soon see URN schemes in the same
> registry as URL schemes (no conflicts allowed), and just annoted
> as to whether the scheme implies URN-ness. 

This much would be reasonable, if only to avoid confusion.

> I'd also like to
> see "urn:" turned into a more universal URL prefix, e.g., 
> allow "urn:http://www.purl.org/blah" as a means of indicating
> "I intend this usage of http://www.purl.org/blah to be treated
> as a permanent name rather than as just the current location".

This is a rathole.  Let's not go there.

So, back to the question of what to call the resource identifiers 
that appear in HTTP.  I'd say there are two choices:

1. Say: these may be either URNs or URLs.  Cite appropriate documents
for each category.

2. Say: these are URIs, where URIs can be URNs or URLs, and other
kinds of URIs as might be defined later by IETF or W3C.  Cite 
appropriate documents for URNs and URLs.

Either one seems easy to me.  Or did I miss something?

Keith