- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:21:10 +0100
- 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