[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network
Jeroen van der Ham
vdham at uva.nl
Mon Sep 22 09:16:08 CDT 2008
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.
More information about the nml-wg
mailing list