[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Jeroen van der Ham]

Jeff W. Boote wrote:
> Here I disagree 100%. That is like saying that FQDN's should not have 
> any structure or implicit type information etc...

Ah! So what actually underlies this whole discussion is the issue of 
naming and addressing. Please, take the time to read: 
http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/ien/ien19.txt

The important point there is:

>   The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek,
> 
>     an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and
> 
> 	a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.

But to come back to FQDNs, yes, they do have a very slight amount of 
implicit information. They contain exactly enough information so that, 
given a root server, you can resolve the *address* that is associated 
with that. Using the addres, you can then figure out a route to it, and 
actually get some useful information.

Now, with FQDNs there is no choice, the lookup information has to be 
contained within that same term. I argue that in NML there is no need 
for this. The lookup part, or any other kind of implicit information, 
can be given using a separate property.
The thing is, you are not going to see NML identifiers being handled out 
of context. Computer programs are going to need the context to make 
sense of it all.

Jeroen.