Re: URI references and aggregation

At 15:57 00/01/10 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:

> I would suggest allowing an intermediate URN form that can represent the 
> difference between primitive and aggregate values:
> 
>     Tag       --> URN:a:xxx
>     Aggregate --> URN:b:xxx
> 
> The URNs here would use different URN namespaces, with different resolution 
> properties.  As I suggest above, I'm not convinced that feature URNs should 
> be further resolvable (for now, at least;  it's possible that we'll devise 
> a useful machine-interpretable form for these in future).  OTOH, it will 
> sometimes be useful for aggregate URNs to be resolvable, using ad-hoc or 
> (to-be-)standardized URN resolution mechanisms, possibly on a 
> per-application basis.  A possible ad-hoc mechanism might be a simple 
> textual subsitution of the 'URN:namespace' prefix for an 
> 'http://host/path/' form of prefix;  for aggregate names that contain URLs, 
> the resolution mechanism may be to simply dereference to URL.

Just some very short points:

- Unsing urn namespaces to solve problems of conneg syntax seems
  not a good idea.
- Restricting each class to a single urn namespace seems a bad
  idea.
- Even if resolvability may not always be possible, and indeed
  not always necessary, artificially making it difficult by
  betting on the wide use of URNs and the associated resolver
  infrastructure is also questionable.

Sorry for being dry and straight.
I guess Ted's comments went into a similar direction.

Regards,   Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:[email protected]   http://www.w3.org