Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yes, it was the URN conclusion. I support that but I was surprised. To me the major point is that a sign (a URzed is a sign) should be used clearly and therefore, the intended use should be clear. In this case, the authors make the Use As Management of the Name dominant over Dereferencing Based On Location. That surprised me. It has been held in some corners that there is no significant difference. I hold that that is a systemic conclusion but in error if different systems are interoperating. (here comes permathread#1: universality of names and locations). Yes, if the URzed denotes the owner, your objection holds. It is a problem of any More Meta Than Thou naming scheme, or why Zero is the Root Of All Theories. len -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...] I assume that by "unexpected conclusion" you mean the recommended use of URNs over URLs as namespace identifiers? I was surprised at this as well. A large part of this document was extracted from an XML schema design rules document I co-authored while at the same company as the authors (so I recognized quite a bit of it) - but in that document, we did not get into "URN vs. URL" to the degree shown here. I can see the advantages to the hierarchical/structured approach of URNs, but also some disadvantages with the recommended approach - for example, where one may need to provide a namespace identifier that denotes a cross-agency initiative. Sure, there would be a "sponsor agency", but one would lose the cross-agency significance in the prescribed approach.
|
