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

RE: uri, urn and info

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
Message-id: <001601c38f6c$57e6a880$c3432099@MasinterT40>

> 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

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).

Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 19:03:49 UTC

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