- From: Andy Powell <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:06:10 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
- To: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- cc: www-zig@w3.org
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Ray Denenberg wrote: > What I'm really trying to say is that we can use globally unique identifiers > for esns, "globally unique" implies a naming authority, and that naming > authority can define that identifier to mean whatever it wants it to mean > and publish that definition, and because it's globally unique there is no > risk of ambiguity. In that case, why don't you slightly re-word the emboldened proposal text to read Proposed Agreement: To retrieve XML records, supply the XML record syntax object identifier (1.2.840.10003.5.109.10) as the record syntax, and supply a globally unique identifier of the desired XML definition as the element set name. and then add Recommended best practice is to use a URI as the globally unique identifier. In general, the URI should not be the locator of an XML schema definition or DTD. ? It would be good to explicitly state that the ESN URI need not be an 'http' URI (because all the examples you use are http URIs and this might confuse people?). It would be good to explicitly state why it is not recommended to use the URI of the XML schema or the DTD as the ESN. (I presume that the proposal does allow me to use the URI of an XML schema or DTD as the ESN if I really, really want to?) Andy -- Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933 Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 06:09:43 UTC