- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:21:13 -0700
- To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "'Gustaf Liljegren'" <gustaf.liljegren@bredband.net>, uri@w3.org
> I think that the distinction of being a name or an address is not a > property of any particular label-token, but a consequence of how it is > used. I think it's fairly clear that any (unambiguous) address *can be > used* as a name. I also think that, given an appropriate infrastructure, > any name can be used as an address. Whatever the standards community may > decree, users will not feel constrained not to use the labels we provide -- > URIs -- in any way that seems convenient to their purpose. I think the foundation work was John Shoch: "Internetwork naming, addressing and routing.", Proceedings, COMPCON, IEEE Computer Society, Fall 1979. I can't find an earlier reference. The architectural concept of separating naming, addressing and routing as separate network functions has been a strong foundation for the Internet. It does seem that we're using the words with slightly different meanings, but the distinctions hold and are important in most of the Internet architecture. > So while naming and addressing may be separate problems, I don't think we > can insist that they use disjoint sets of tokens. Just because it is possible to use a name as an address and vice versa doesn't mean that it is a good idea, or that IETF or W3C should adopt a policy of not distinguishing between the two or encouraging registration of namespaces where the primary definitional role isn't clear. This isn't a constraint on USERS (who can attempt to do whatever they like with their URIs) but can easily be a constraint on those who wish to get their namespaces inscribed in IANAs hallowed rolls. Let us imagine a policy where namespaces that have (interesting, useful) operational definitions get to be registered as URI schemes, namespaces that have a definition which establishes a (possibly delegated) naming authority / registration mechanism get to be registered as URN namespaces... ... and namespaces that have neither get to be debated endlessly on uri@w3.org, until the definers give up or else fit their schemes into one of the two camps. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 02:22:30 UTC