Re: What Name Should A Namespace Name?

> <- So, to my original question (what to use as a namespace name),
> <- I think that using an HTTP URI should probably be avoided,
>
> Sorry Sean, what were you suggesting as an alternative?

Anything URI that has a non-dereferencing scheme, but has a central
administration body. That'll be a URN then. Having said that, I don't
see why a data:, URL couldn't be used, due to the level of
specificity. IMHO, a tann: [1] would be ideal for this... naming an
abstract concept directly without any particular resolution mechanism,
although people are by now so dependent upon HTTP, it makes me wonder.
That's why I was rambling a bit about using HTTP for namespaces - yes,
all of this has been covered in depth before, and there have been
endless circular debates, but these often end up disappearing down the
theoretical rat-hole. The fact of the matter is, namespaces are being
created all the time, as are terms, and we need to have some semblance
of order - best practises and the like, to ensure we don't end up with
a semantic melee.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/02/tann/

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 13:46:06 UTC