- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:06:21 -0800
- To: <danbri@danbri.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>, "'Harry Halpin'" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: <urn-nid@ietf.org>
((Please follow up only on uri@w3.org (DO NOT REPLY ALL)))
By recent popular demand, I updated (slightly)
http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html (and .txt and .xml)
and submitted it to the internet-drafts repository as
draft-masinter-dated-uri-05.txt.
The only substantial change I made since the 2004 draft was to change the
interpretation of the date from "first instant" to "last instant", based on
a comment by Al Gilman in 2004.
Replies to recent comments:
======
Ray Denenberg asked:
> http://info-uri.info/ Have you considered 'info:' for duri and tbd?
Yes, I considered 'info:/' instead of URN namespaces. I don't think it fits
into 'info' because 'duri' and 'tdb' aren't really naming authorities in the
same way. This is more like urn:uuid:...
I thought about switching to plain URI schemes (without "urn:", e.g.,
uri:2008:whatever instead of urn:duri:2008:whatever), but it would be a
larger change to the draft, and require more explanation.
========
Pat Hayes wrote:
> ... the date should be optional.
There's no point in 'duri' without a date. I think even 'tdb' needs a date
of interpretation, because even when resources are unchanging, the date of
interpretation matters.
========
Stuart Williams wrote:
> .. something of a year 10K (or maybe 100K) problem
The reference to RFC 2550 hints at how to solve that problem.
=========
Harry Halpin and Tim Kindberg wrote reviews or comments in 2004
which I responded to in email, but I didn't update the document
based on their comments and my replies.
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 04:07:09 UTC