- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:40:11 -0500
- To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Cc: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, uri@w3.org
What's wrong with using a base URI and relative URIs? For example: Base URI for the namespace: http://ErikWildesLocationNamespace.org/placenames/ Name for Berkeley: http://ErikWildesLocationNamespace.org/placenames/Berkeley Presuming you register ErikWildesLocationNamespace.org (not surprisingly it's available just now), you get to decide how to allocate URIs associated with that DNS name. You can publish a document, perhaps at that base URI, and have it say: "URIs of the form http://ErikWildesLocationNamespace.org/placenames/XXXXXX are names of places. Permission to allocate new XXXX names is given to (specify your rules here). The owner of these URIs warrants that they will remain so associated in perpetuity (at least insofar as he is in a position to guarantee that). Accordingly, while it is >possible< to use HTTP to dereference any of the resources identified by these URIs, such dereference is not required to establish the association between some XXXX and the corresponding place. See (pointer to your documentation) for how such associations are maintained." You have then what is effectively a namespace, but well grounded in the http URI scheme. Because the DNS name is (hypothetically) assigned to you, you are in a position to delegate assignment responsibilities for the individual URIs. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 19:39:54 UTC