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

RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need for urn: URIs

From: <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:33:09 -0700
Message-Id: <p06001804bb30ab160a6e@[]>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <uri@w3.org>

At 9:52 AM +0300 7/8/03, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> wrote:
>As for https: URIs, well https: is an oddball URI scheme that
>has inherent in it (IMO) an equivalence assertion. I.e. for
>any two URIs
>    http://X
>    https://X
>the following can be presumed
>    <http://X> owl:sameAs <https://X>

No, it really cannot.  I know of several cases where they
point to different resources, and many cases where one points
to a resource and the other does not.  Further, they
are clearly functionally different as protocol elements; the
difference between them makes a fundamental assertion
about how to engage in protocol processing.

>Ultimately, when resolving an HTTP-URN to a representation,
>a server somewhere will return an entity in
>its response corresponding to a representation of the
>resource denoted by the URI provided in the original
>request; and if it is a well behavied server, will specify
>in the response a URI denoting the representation itself,
>if it is an entity distinct from that denoted by the
>original URI.

You seem to be working from the assumption that if two
identifiers resolve to the same resource at the end of
this processing, they were the same identifier.  That's
not true, and it has been discussed to death.  If that's
not what you mean, I don't think you're being clear
(and, again, I think the way to be clear here is to
write a draft specifying the mechanisms in full)

>I could found a company
>today, grab some domain such as .urn.org and begin charging
>money for subdomains such as issn.urn.org and also sell
>the software needed to manage the namespaces and redirection
>mappings. T

Sure, and if you want to found one,  go ahead.  You'll need to build
the trust of your customers that your resolution mechanisms
work better than and will return the same answers as the
mechanisms already specified, but that's up to you and
your marketing department.

>>  writing
>>  it up as an ID with a full specification is a good first step.
>Well, I think putting it on the table for informal discussion
>is a good first step.

My informal response is "this has no obvious advantages over the
DDDS proposal, has strong flavors of things that have
been discussed and rejected, and isn't well specified."

>An ID is certainly an expected subsequent step.

That would help, thanks.

				Ted Hardie
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:33:20 UTC

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