- 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