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

Fw: uri, urn and info

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:36:02 -0400
Message-ID: <049001c38f44$383c2640$849c938c@lib.loc.gov>
To: <uri@w3c.org>

Another attempt to post this....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>; <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: uri, urn and info


> Larry --
>
> Could you clarify your position a bit?
>
> Would you be satisfied  if 'info' were registered as a urn namespace (and
> each category in question registered subordinate to 'info', by NISO; as
> opposed to your suggestion that each category be registered separately as
a
> urn namespace)?
>
> I can't see anything in your analysis that argues against that approach.
>
> Please note, I'm just trying to understand the range of options here (not
> necessarily advocating this approach).
>
> --Ray
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
> To: <uri@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 3:36 AM
> Subject: RE: uri, urn and info
>
>
> >
> > To return to the discussion of
> >   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandesompel-info-uri-00.txt
> >
> > which started all of this:
> >
> > Section 7.2 "Why Not Use a URN Namespace ID for Identifiers from Public
> > Namespaces?" claims, for "info" URIs:
> >
> >      Some
> >      of these namespaces will not have persistence of identifiers as a
> >      primary purpose, while others will have locator semantics as well
> >      as name semantics. It would therefore be inappropriate to employ a
> >      URN Namespace ID for such namespaces.
> >
> > There is no requirement that URN namespaces have 'persistence of
> > identifiers as a primary purpose'.  Yes, it is advised that
> > URN namespaces should be persistent. But most of the examples of
> > URN namespaces don't have persistence as their primary purpose.
> > There have been no examples of 'info' namespaces proposed that
> > do not have persistence.
> >
> > There is no requirement that URN namespaces not also have
> > 'locator semantics'. It is only required that URN namespaces
> > have name semantics.
> >
> > Given the (purported and demonstrated) ease of registering URN
> > namespaces, the fact that the public has not generally availed
> > itself of the process of registering URN namespaces is no excuse
> > for establishing another process, especially one which is less
> > transparent.
> >
> > For example, the Internet Draft suggests, in section 4, that
> > there is a policy that (US) NISO will follow, but it doesn't
> > articulate the policy, does not document the process, and the
> > suggested URI for the process
> >     http://info-uri.niso.org/info-uri-policy
> > yields (at least currently) "Cannot find server or DNS Error".
> >
> > So my suggestion is that NISO instead dedicate itself to registering
> > URN namespaces (with IANA using the documented URN process)
> > for the namespaces that it would have otherwise registered
> > as "info" namespaces, and that IETF not proceed with the
> > publication of this draft.
> >
> > Larry
> > --
> > http://larry.masinter.net
> >
>
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 11:36:06 UTC

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