- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:23:10 -0700
- To: "'Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress'" <rden@loc.gov>, uri@w3.org
> 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. To add an argument against that approach: I think it would be more valuable and less work if NISO were to help its constituants register (and resolve) URN namespaces than it would for NISO to maintain its own registry. More valuable to NISO constituents and more valuable to the Internet community, more valuable to users of the registered names. One value comes from the transparency of the process: the policy and process for registering URN schemes are more transparent than those for NISO schemes. The URN scheme registry is more visible than the NISO scheme registry. A second value comes from integration: it is more valuable to have one widely-used registration system than two. A second argument against the approach: If you ignore my first argument, and attempt to register "info" as a URN namespace, I would argue that "info" should instead be renamed "us-niso", to distinguish the namespace authority from the Norske Idrettsutøveres Sentralorganisasjon and the National Irish Safety Organisation (both of which show up when I Google on NISO). Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 19:03:49 UTC