[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Jeroen van der Ham]

Hi Aaron,

Aaron Brown wrote:
>> Martin, Jeroen, Aaron, John, Victor, others: what do you think?
> 
> For the class definitions themselves, I think it makes sense to use  
> URIs a la namespaces so we could put some documentation at the  
> specified URL.

Just to make this absolutely clear: by "URIs a la namespaces" you mean
to use a URL, abbreviated as a namespace? (So "nml:Node" where the
namespace nml has been defined previously).
It's a little bit confusing because both URNs and URLs are URIs...


> For the identifiers for individual instances, I think
> the URNs make more sense since it doesn't imply a specific method of
> access to get information about the element.

Now this I do not agree with, because it would mean that the OGF starts
administrating its urn:ogf namespace, and handing out specific subsets
to domains, with all associated registration and possible squatting
problems.
Domains already have a domain name, so why not use that?

Jeroen.