W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2009

URN duri and tdb spec updated

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>
Message-ID: <000501c9867d$f1a13e00$d4e3ba00$@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

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.

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 04:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:32 UTC