[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@redhat.com]
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:13:40PM -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> It would seem to me that such a registry should
> be part of the metadata of a site (see Tim Bray's
> recent contribution to TAG on sites) and not a
> separate database as such. That way interoperation
> falls out of the standard web architecture and
> possibly, the semantic web.
> That's not different than Google :-)
Not much, no. It would depend on the assertions
that are associated to the registration of the
namespace. Joe gave some examples of that in
the standard he referenced. How normative or
informative it is would be the rub, for sure,
but it has the feel of a metadata system for
a site. Hmm... URIs are not URLs but namespace
names are URIs. Would I want to register namespace
names outside their context of use as disambiguators
in a document?
URIs are, as predicted, on their way to becoming
legal names or trademarks. Not surprising, really,
but a registry of such has to be aware of any
assertions implied explicitly or implicitly by
the act of registration including that there
may be none beyond uniqueness. Depends on the
job, I guess. I can see where this would veer
off toward RDDL/RDF or even topic maps. It's
just so tempting ... :-)
len
|
