- From: Ron Daniel <RDaniel@DATAFUSION.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:57:47 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dan Connolly is almost correct when he says: > There's no reason to indirect via a urn: prefix. > isbn:nnnn > is perfectly valid URI syntax[1], provides all the necessary > information, > and has been in use since Nov 1991. I hope the folks that acutally > own and operate the ISBN social process endorse this practice soon > and register isbn: with IANA. > [Ron Daniel] There is no particular technical reason to prefer urn:isbn over isbn:. However, the former is the syntax the IETF's working group decided upon, based strongly on the requests of the major browser vendor at the time. Personally, I agree with Dan that the urn: prefix is not strictly necessary. But that prefix is actually a religious issue (that is, it is a matter of taste rather than clear technical merit) and is a known rathole. So professionally I try to stick to the standard and not reopen old discussions. Also, Dan cites a message from 1991 where Edward Vielmetti says he will be using URIs of the form: > isbn:0-13-484080-1 [Ron Daniel] People should be aware of the fact that the hyphens in an ISBN are optional, and there only for making them easier for humans to transcribe. Typically they are removed for storage in databases. So people should expect to have to deal with ISBNs that do and do not contain hyphens. Finally, to get back to my point in earlier email in this thread, just because an individual, or even a community of individuals, thinks its a good idea to use isbn:1-234-56789-0 as a URI does not make it a good idea. I think it will be a great idea once the formal maintenance agencies for ISBNs decide to do so. Until then I think we should not pre-empt their choices. Regards, Ron
Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 10:57:54 UTC