ws-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anne Thomas Manes <>
Subject Re: reserved web space for names URIs?
Date Thu, 05 May 2005 12:57:21 GMT
Hmmm ... 

A namespace URI is a name. Is "Sanjiva" evil? It seems pretty flat to
me, unstructured, and unresolvable wthout global knowledge. But it
seems to work pretty well. Pretty much everyone working in this space
can recognize and resolve the name "Sanjiva". The reason I like URNs
is that they aren't resolvable, and therefore it's clear that they
are, in fact, names.

But that's just my opinion. Who am I to argue with the likes of TimBL
and Tim Bray?


On 5/4/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <> wrote:
> Hi Anne!
> > I suggest using the urn: scheme rather than the http: scheme for URIs.
> Hmmm. The W3C Tag has "found" a while back that NS URIs be
> dereferencible and that they result in some "meaningful description of
> the namespace" - hence the need for something like RDDL. See
> Also, I've bought into the mantra that URNs are evil .. they're flat,
> unstructured and unresolvable without global knowledge (and only if
> people registered!). In fact many people even write them down wrong -
> the syntax is spsed to have urn:foo:bar but must people don't include
> the 2nd part. (I'm the one who used urn:foo for the first sample that we
> shipped with IBM SOAP (which became Apache SOAP) .. and I've seen many
> follow that incorrect example!)
> Sanjiva.

View raw message