- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 17:52:13 -0400
- To: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- Cc: W3C URI List <uri@w3.org>, Norman Paskin <n.paskin@doi.org>, Larry Lannom <llannom@cnri.reston.va.us>, "Sun, Sam X." <ssun@cnri.reston.va.us>
Howdy, Ray Denenberg wrote: > namespace. My question was, on what basis do they make that decision; is it > completely arbitrary? I gather (from your message) that you don't necessarily > think it's completely arbitrary, that there will be characteristics of a scheme > that will help guide that determination, for example handle has a complete > resolution protocol which would argue for a URI scheme while a less > well-developed system might want to avail itself of some of the URN resolution > infrastructure, which would argue for a URN namespace. Is this on the right > track? This is pretty much what I was getting at. I would perhaps phrase it slightly differently -- organizations which don't need to develop end-to-end protocols can leverage the URN infrastructure, etc. > This is helpful (if it's accurate) but I think this sort of discussion > needs to be formally documented and some guidelines developed. In principle, yes; in practice -- I don't believe we have enough practice to yet to be very detailed or firm in guidelines. Leslie. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com -------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 17:53:47 UTC