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

Re: new URI schemes, where to keep

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:21:10 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031002101443.02ebe008@127.0.0.1>
To: giovanni@wup.it, uri@w3.org

Start here:

   http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes

and then follow indirect references as necessary.

Note that genuine URI schemes (as opposed to soi-disant wannabes) don't 
reach the point of "has faded as draft", as they're required to be 
published in RFCs.

There is also an *informal* account of many proposed URI schemes accessible 
via at:
   http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes

#g
--

At 10:26 02/10/03 +0200, giovanni@wup.it wrote:
><?xml version="1.0" ?>
>In my very humble opinion, once fully understood that URIs don't have to 
>be resolvable to actual, network retrievable objects, the main problem 
>seems only one: unique and realiable retrival of the specifications.
>Where are the specification kepts? the RFCs are very difficult to get into 
>(for both sound common sense reasons and political ones as far as i 
>understand) and internet drafts are forced to fade  and deleted ( imho 
>absurdely, everything should be kept for reference, that's really the 
>basics, think CVS )
>So say you have a URI scheme for some particular domain what do you do? 
>you hold it up in a web site that you own, rely on its availability, 
>publish it as draft .. fight to try to make it a RFC.. then eventually 
>you're going to give up but what happens to those that decided to use your 
>URI in their semantic web software? All they can do is hope that you 
>resubmit the Draft and make noise every 6 months..  or something like that.
>I believe that every uri scheme should be kept for reference in some 
>standardized container. Then it is up to the general consensus and 
>practice to decide to use it or less. Sandro Hawke came up with an idea 
>for identifying generic ideas of objects or even persona moods that's 
>called "taguri" (www.taguri.org) .. the funny part is that i currently 
>believe in the utility of such a scheme more than he does anymore (last 
>time we talked he seemed to have been convinced that is a "broken web 
>architecture".. ) :-) I am writing a sw application and i believe i will 
>use his scheme.
>But what will it happen to it once it has faded as draft? Should i include 
>the specifications with the release of my software?
>
>Clealy.. consensus alone cannote be trusted, the "system" should be 
>stronger than that and ensure that rdf documents are readable and 
>understandalbe well beyond the scope of a single organization or 
>individual fanning a certain cause.
>
>In a not so unrelated matter..
>
>..basically the same observations could be applied to the general idea of 
>namespaces as in "location on the web where a document is kept".  where 
>even additional problem pose (has the document been altered since the rdf 
>was originally written? how can i be sure "good" on that document 
>rappresent what was originally supposed to mean?) so i'd feel better with 
>a URI for namespaces to identiy the "concept" and a date (concepts ARE 
>subject to mutation, unless the're cristallized as RFCs are..) and of 
>course many repositories working as archives capable of resolving a given 
>namespace uri and give you the correct document.
>--
>Giovanni Tummarello

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 06:04:26 UTC

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