OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Draft US Government policyon XML Namespaces

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]

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.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS