W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Refactoring RDF/XML Syntax W3C Working Draft

From: <tony_hammond@harcourt.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 19:00:49 +0100
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3350EF4A.94766435-ON00256AC6.00618647@harcourtbrace.com>


Many thanks for sound feedback. Completely agree that the URI scheme should
be registered. And I guess we're on our way to doing that - but these
things can take time to action. Meantime could I ask that we hold the
discussion to the refactoring issue which is more on topic for this list
and which is of main importance to me. I could sure use your collective
help on this one.

(Note I'm just following standard XML namespace conventions here. The "URI"
here is not gettable. Can make it so if that would be felt to be more in
keeping with RDF interpretation. But *please* let's not go there - at least
this time :)


                    "Sean B.                                                                                  
                    Palmer"              To:     <tony_hammond@harcourt.com>                                  
                    <sean@mysteryl       cc:     <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>                                    
                    ights.com>           Subject:     Re: Refactoring RDF/XML Syntax W3C Working Draft        

> xmlns:doi="doi:1014/10.1000/system.schema.2001-07-26#"

Ugh, an unregistered URI scheme? URI schemes are one of the most valuable
resources that the Web has to offer, and should not be created on a whim
[1]. They should only be created when there is a well-defined requirement
for them, i.e. that a URN namespace won't do, and that the objects cannot
be identified to a degree of satisfaction by any other URI scheme. If your
identifiers are that useful that they need an entirely new URI scheme, then
I'd love to hear the reasons, but if not, would you consider registering a
URN namespace with the IETF?

You may also consider creating a "tag:" URI [2] for the DOI space, which
may end up being something like:-


But note that the "tag:" URI scheme is currently in the process of being


[1] I'm going into severe hypocrite mode there, seeing as how I've made
plenty... but none on a proprietary basis, all for intended global uses.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2001 13:03:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC