- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:27:26 +0100
- To: <michaelm@netsol.com>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@eBuilt.com>, "Tim Kindberg" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, <uri@w3.org>
> > (1) significant administrative overheard > > Some URNs have this, some don't. It depends on how you > organize your namespace... In particular, tag could register urn:tag: (or whatever) and decree that that space is to be used for what is currently known as "tag:" URIs. In development, one could use "urn:x-tag:". As Michael points out, there is no specific problem with using URNs for this particular application - they are unique, non-reassignable, and they need not resolve to any particular entity. I just don't see why one should use up an entire URI scheme on this when the particular semantics are already covered by an exisiting URI scheme. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 27 April 2001 12:38:38 UTC