On 9/2/09 4:39 AM, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@i...> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Tsao, Scott writes:

 ...

>> The committee (we are participating in) seems to think that we
>> should register a formal URN namespace for "global" uses like OASIS
>> and S1000D have done [1], because that would allow us to use this
>> unique namespace as part of our schema namespace structure for
>> different schemas in different specifications.
> 
> Why doesn't the same apply for e.g. http://[your committee]/namespaces/xxx?
> 
> Which has the additional benefit that as I mentioned before, you can
> document your namespace at that URI...

I had been under the impression that the Namespace recommendation
specifically prohibited namespace URIs from being resolvable to anything.
But I see that in the 1.1 version it says

" It is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval *of a schema*
(if any exists)." [Emphasis mine.]

Which definitely allows the use Henry suggests.

I had always thought that URNs were preferable simply because they *aren't*
resolvable by any generally-available infrastructure.

But having a URL that has documentation at the other end of it seems
reasonable.

Cheers,

Eliot
----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:  ekimber@r... <mailto:ekimber@r...>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>