- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:13:09 +0600
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <swag-dev@yahoogroups.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
<- Anything URI that has a non-dereferencing scheme, but has a central <- administration body. Hmm...not sure I like the sound of that kind of org. There's also all the copyright type chaos to deal with, which has to some extent settled down with URLs. 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. I hadn't seen tanns before - neat idea (doesn't need the central admin for a start), but perhaps too late. <- 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. I'm not sure how much order can be 'imposed' - a lot of areas are pretty much tied to existing specs or common (rarely best) practices. I suppose it's a matter of getting the taxonomy of low-hanging fruit right really quickly...
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 14:16:39 UTC