- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:33:47 +0300
- To: ext Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, "'Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)'" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
On 2003-10-02 08:37, "ext Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> wrote: > I've been pretty happy with the rule of thumb that says: > > Namespaces whose definitions are: "there is an authority, > and the authority says what the name means" > should be URN namespaces. > Other namespaces where there is an operational definition > for how to interpret the URI (independent of how the URI > might get assigned) can be new URI schemes. The value of > a new URI scheme depends on the clarity and likelihood > of implementation of the operational interpretation. > > I wouldn't mind instituting a new rule-of-thumb that URI > scheme proposals should come with examples of implementations > of the operational definitions. > > What do you think of my proposed 'rules of thumb'? I don't see why all of the above cannot be addressed using http: URIs. The management/authority characteristics can be captured along various lines: by dns ownership, by server-internal management structure, and the issue of who gets to say what some URI means can be equally well addressed within an http: URI context as in a URN context, with the added benefit in the latter case of having the infrastructure in place to resolve those http: URIs if and as required. Patrick
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 03:33:59 UTC