W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > December 2003

Announcement: A revised I-D for "info"

From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:49:08 -0000
Message-ID: <2FFC9A66063F124A9AEA6EE92C18DF5507E00A0D@elslonexc004.eslo.co.uk>
To: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>

Hi All:

Following our announcement of the "info" URI scheme a couple months back [1]
we would like to notify the list of a revision to the I-D which has now been
posted on the I-D repository [2]. The revision targets three key areas which
further simplify the "info" URI scheme as a facilitator for referencing
information assets:

	a) "info" now excludes any dereference capability
	   Consequence: no resolution systems are to be associated with
"info" URIs

	b) "info" now includes support for full hierarchy
	   Consequence: the identifier component of an "info" URI may
include "/" chars 

	c) "info" now includes support for URI fragments
	   Consequence: secondary resources may be indirectly identified by
"info" URIs

Additionally, three other changes have also been made:

	d) The BNF now reuses many of the RFC2396bis productions
	   Consequence: facilitates comparison with future generic URI
syntax

	e) Some of the examples have been changed for simplification
	   Consequence: removes possible confusion with other works in
progres

	f) Section 7 "Rationale" has been improved
	   Consequence: clearer justification why "info" URI scheme is
required

Together with this new I-D we are pleased to announce that an early
implementation of the "info" URI Registry is now available online at the
"info" website [3]. The namespace registration records are human/machine
accessible and can be harvested using the OAI-PMH protocol [4]. Alternative
disclosures of registration records using e.g. RDF/XML may be made available
at a future time.

Two additional documents are also made available on the "info" website [3]:

	1. A comprehensive FAQ which answers common questions re "info"
	  (Follow the link <About "info" URI> on the menu bar)

	2. An "info" Registry policy document
	  (Follow the link <Registry Policy> on the menu bar)

Please note that both documents are currently evolving and are being made
available at this time for discussion purposes. They should not be treated
as authoritative but will be improved through comments received. [Also note
that the link to the I-D on the "info" website points to the previous
version ('-00'), not the current version ('-01') - we will amend this.]

We would like to invite feedback on the Registry and associated documents
and any comments on the revised I-D.

One particular question we have regards the use of the BNF productions from
the draft RFC2396bis [5] rather than from the reference RFC2396 [6] itself.
The reasons are twofold: i) we would like to futureproof this specification,
and ii) the "segment" production in RFC2396 is overly restrictive, and has
now been generalized in the work ongoing in the successor to that RFC. We
believe this is the correct approach - and seems to follow the approach
taken in the IRI work [7].

Thanks,
Tony 

Tony Hammond
Advanced Technology Group, Elsevier
32 Jamestone Road, London NW1 7BY, UK

<tel:+44-20-7424-4445>
<mailto:t.hammond@elsevier.com>


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Sep/0100.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandesompel-info-uri-01.txt
[3] http://info-uri.info/
[4] http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html
[5] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt
[6] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
[7] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-05.txt
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2003 01:50:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC