[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML Public Indentifier
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:27:34 -0500
It's a warping definition of "need". It
seems you are saying this is all application
dependent. I tend to agree with that but add
that preserving the option is good given that
one might want to strip the URLs, replace them
with URNs, and archive the puppy. I am thinking
about applications that have to purge information
but might at a later time have to retrieve it
given a change of policy.
That is painful with a relational database given a
lot of keyed relationships.
RDDL is handy. So is a catalog. In what situation
is one to be preferred over the other?
I understand the namespace density problem
and always have. But we can't spend two
years telling the world a namespace is just a
label then tell them it can also be a URL
in every sense of the definition. It shocks
the monkey tree.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:email@example.com]
At 01:56 PM 05/09/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>If the author of the namespace spec can say
>on one hand that it is just a label, and on
>the other hand can say he won't use a URN
>that can't be dereferenced, isn't that a
They don't *need* to point to anything to do the job
for which they were defined. They are just labels.
Labels that can be dereferenced to get something to
tell you something about the namespace, in the case
where you don't know anything, are better than those
that can't [in some applications at least].
I didn't realize this when we were doing the namespace
work, and at that time would have been friendlier to
URNs than I am now. But RDDL [or something like it]
seems awfully useful in a namespace-dense world, which
seems to be the one we're getting. -Tim