- From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:04:02 -0700
- To: uri@w3.org
At 05:27 PM 4/27/2001 +0100, Sean B. Palmer wrote: >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. I guess I'm either missing the point or not effectively making my point about the resolution assumptions behind URNs -- location-independent vs contextual -- but in my mind that still eliminates URNs, despite the advantages that using the URN namespace would have. The literature on URNs is littered with 'location independent'. So what am I missing, exactly? Thanks, Tim. Tim Kindberg internet & mobile systems lab hewlett-packard laboratories 1501 page mill road, ms 1u-17 palo alto ca 94304-1126 usa www.champignon.net/TimKindberg/ timothy@hpl.hp.com voice +1 650 857 5609 fax +1 650 857 2358
Received on Friday, 27 April 2001 13:04:16 UTC