Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Chris Maden <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
[Steven R. Newcomb]
> [John Cowan:]
> > Global uniqueness *is* a requirement of URNs, in the sense that
> > two distinct things ought not be described by the same URN, and
> > someone has to define what counts as "distinct things".
> OK. I necessarily conclude from your answer that URNs can't do what
> FPIs can do.
I am not sure how this follows. Are you saying that two distinct
things *ought* to be described by the same FPI? I'm having a hard
time thinking of a case in which this would be a good idea, except
maybe -//crism//DOCUMENT Random Text of the Day//EN, in which case the
FPI does, in some sense, point to a single resource (the semantic
concept of a randomly selected document).
> > My understanding is that the widespread use of unregistered FPIs
> > merely reflects the lack of easy access to registration until
> > recently.
> My understanding is that there is a need to refer to things that
> nobody has registered and that nobody who needs them to be
> registered has the authority to register. Surely you're not
> proposing that Joe User should take it upon himself to register
> Sears and/or it's 1922 Farm Catalog on behalf of Sears, if Sears
> hasn't done this already for itself.
I don't understand this statement. There is a need to refer to things
that nobody has registered, yes. But you then say that Joe User
shouldn't register Sears, but that's exactly what he did in your
-//Sears//... example. If Sears has not created an FPI for their 1922
catalog, then Joe User should say -//Joe User//NONSGML Sears Roebuck
and Co. 1922 Catalog//EN.
> I gather from what you say, however, that URNs can only be used to
> reference things that their owners have arranged to be referencable
> via URIs,
This is a truism, since URNs are a subset of URIs. I think you meant
> by going to the expense and trouble of registering themselves and/or
> their published information assets.
This isn't true. The URN spec, as John quoted, specifically allows
the case of URNs that are not resolvable to a concrete electronic
resource. And since FPIs can be used as URNs,
is a perfectly legitimate URN that points to the lump of paper in my
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)