[uri] <none>

Hello Larry,

>   I think 'tag:' fits more as a URN scheme,
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
Interesting hybrid... trying to decide which way you were jumping on this
one :-)

I like the idea of a univerally applied principle such as you suggest. Could
you expand a little on "'naming authority assignment' schemes". I think I
know what you are getting at... but I'm trying to see why, for example, the
http URI scheme wouldn't fall on the URN namespace side of this distinction
- it establishes URI assignment authorities  that then control the
assignment of URI within some sub-space. Maybe URI assignment authorities
don't fall within the locus of what you mean by a 'naming authority'.

It's a while since I looked at DOI (and wondered why http://purl.org or urn:
style URI wouldn't do). IIRC there is a delegation scheme within DOI so that
sub-spaces within DOI space get further assigned to 'digital object'
publishers.

I like where I think you are going, but I think it hinges on what is meant
by  "'naming authority assignment' schemes".

Regards

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org] 
> Sent: 16 September 2003 06:54
> To: uri@w3.org; urn-nid@lists.verisignlabs.com
> Cc: leslie@thinkingcat.com; thiemann@acm.org
> Subject: URNs and URIs
> 
> 
> 
> I've come to a new opinion about the role of URN namespaces
> and URI schemes. My new opinion is that URN namespaces
> should be used exactly for 'naming authority assignment' 
> schemes, nothing else, and for all of them.
> 
> While permanent assignment is a desirable property, it is not 
> definitional.
> 
> Other schemes for naming which do not require a namespace 
> authority to assign a name (such as 'hash') should instead 
> register new URI schemes. Those that are not of sufficient 
> interest to the internet community, or that don't want to 
> describe their schemes, should use 'vnd-' or 'org-'.
> 
> For URN namespaces, the namespace name should accurately 
> identify the organization doing the assignment completely 
> unambiguously.
> 
> I think this is a consistent and meaningful policy that
> removes some of the ambiguity over the URN/URI choice.
> 
> So, for example:
> 
> 
> doi:, info:, hdl:
>    These should all be URN namespaces (but with
>    more appropriate names)
> 
> hash:
>   This should be a URI scheme (like data).
> 
> tdb: and duri:
>   These should be URI schemes, not URN namespaces
> 
> tag:
>   I think 'tag:' fits more as a URN scheme, but I'm
>   not sure. The naming authority is definitely the
>   email address / domain name owner.
> 
> Larry
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 04:10:08 UTC