- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:39:37 +0100
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 10:07 AM 9/27/01 -0400, Frank Manola wrote: >Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > At 07:37 PM 9/26/01 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > >While URLs and URNs no longer are considered to represent disjunct > > >partitions of URI space, they still (to my understanding) are considered > > >to be valid and necessary concepts distinguishing between resources > > >which are expected to have some "physical" online realization and > > >those which are trully abstract. > > > > > >For those who haven't seen it yet, cf > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-uri-clarification-20010921/. > > > > Er, the disjointness of URLs and URNs is one of the few definite > > distinctions that is asserted by that document: > >If you really mean this disjointness to be considered as definite as all >that, you're going to have to say it in a more explicit way than either >of the two quotations below, particularly in view of the following, also >from Section 1.2: "the view became that an individual scheme does not >need to be cast into one of a discrete set of URI types such as "URL", >"URN"..." , and the fact that "URI space was thought to be partitioned >into two classes: URL and URN" is described as being part of the >"Classical View", not the "Contemporary View". Is the idea that: > >a. These distinctions were made in the past, and continue to be very >important, or >b. These distinctions were made in the past, but are deprecated now, or >c. something else? My answer is (c): something else. URN no longer being regarded as a "URI type", but a specific URI scheme called "urn:". [[[ 1.2 Contemporary View Over time, the importance of this additional level of hierarchy seemed to lessen; the view became that an individual scheme does not need to be cast into one of a discrete set of URI types such as "URL", "URN", "URC", etc. Web-identifer schemes are in general URI schemes; a given URI scheme may define subspaces. Thus "http:" is a URI scheme. "urn:" is also a URI scheme; it defines subspaces, called "namespaces". For example, the set of URNs of the form "urn:isbn:n-nn-nnnnnn-n" is a URN namespace. ("isbn" is an URN namespace identifier. It is not a "URN scheme" nor a "URI scheme"). ]]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-uri-clarification-20010921/ Maybe this point could be made more clearly. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 10:40:28 UTC