Re: [emergency] EDXL_DE - Notes from the meeting to help with minutes and issues list.

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

On Aug 18, 2005, at 8/18/05 8:11 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:
> I assume the requirement is interoperability and uniqueness for  
> identifiers.
> And *a* solution is to ensure they are cast as URIs.

Certainly, yes... but we're at the point of having to assess whether  
it's a workable solution.  Personally, I'd like it very much if it  
were, but we weren't certain that all addressing schemes had agreed- 
upon URI representations... so we came up with the expedient of  
identifying the scheme explicitly (and of course "uri" could be one  
such identification).

We used the pattern of <valueListURN> / <value>*, just as you'd  
suggested previously, except that in this case we couldn't guarantee  
that the scheme would necessarily be in the form of a finite list or  
would itself have a conventional URN designation, so literal reuse of  
those particular elements didn't strike us as appropriate.

(And by the way, I'm not sure you're correct in saying, in a  
different thread, that <valueListURN> doesn't contain a URN... I'm  
pretty sure we specified that it should be, or at least we intended  
to, else I don't think we would have named it so specifically.)

So anyway, if we could rely on all network addressing schemes having  
well-known URI representations, even though we can't control those  
schemes... or if we agreed to accept excluding the use of any that  
don't...  then I'd certainly support defining this as a URI.

- Art