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

Re: Proposal: 'tag' URIs

From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:04:02 -0700
Message-Id: <>
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?



Tim Kindberg

internet & mobile systems lab  hewlett-packard laboratories
1501 page mill road, ms 1u-17
palo alto
ca 94304-1126

voice +1 650 857 5609
fax +1 650 857 2358
Received on Friday, 27 April 2001 13:04:16 UTC

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