W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Proposal: 'tag' URIs

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:36:50 +0100
Message-ID: <02d601c0cf38$5ef979a0$16ec93c3@z5n9x1>
To: <michaelm@netsol.com>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "Tim Kindberg" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, <sandro@w3.org>
> You also need to specify which calendar you're  using.

Oh, that's  very good point: calendar i18n issues. Of course, the URI
scheme could decree that it only uses the "Western" calendar or
something, which wold probably make sense given that the DNS records
are all in Western dates. There has been some excellent discussion on
www-rdf-calendar [1] about issues such as these.

> [...] there is no permanent record of who owned
> what domain on what date...

Hmm... that's a bit of a drawback, but then again, any URI scheme is
based on trust. As the TANN scheme page says:-

   What if someone else uses my name space?
   That's in issue beyond the scope of this standard. TANNs
   are like DCE GUIDs and UUIDs -- they provide a way to
   generate unique identifiers, but they don't enforce the
   uniqueness, they don't provide security against spoofing, etc.
   What they do provide is a way to avoid unintentional conflicts.
   - http://www.w3.org/2001/02/tann/

Given the fact that URIs are only ever used for proprietary
representations of resources within a given context, I don't see that
the uniqueness will be much of a problem. If the whole world started
using the W3C's XHTML namespace for something completely different,
I'm sure the W3C would have to give in to the pressure in the end :-)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 27 April 2001 12:38:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC