Re: [egov-registry] Need for standard URI structure (Was Re:[egov-registry] regrep)

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Farrukh Najmi wrote:

> Changing the thread title to reflect the discussion closer.
>
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>
>> Maewyn,
>>
>> For the registry, we need to describe each metadata item type with a 
>> URI.
>> Since we currently use URLs rather than URNs in UK Gov, it might be 
>> useful
>> if these point to a description of the item type - i.e. the relevant 
>> page of
>> the e-GMS. This could obviously be done if the e-GMS were in HTML or 
>> XML.
>>
>> In anticipation that this might be done sometime, we need to choose some
>> URIs. I know Adrian was looking at direct URI access to the GovTalk web
>> site. Do we have this available? I suggest something like:
>>
>> http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/registry/contributor.htm
>> http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/registry/coverage.htm#temporal
>>
>> What do you think? It is not essential to set up the ability to 
>> access these
>> straight away - what I would like to do is set up a URI format that will
>> support this in the future.
>>  
>>
> For an example of how the URIs might be used in the registry see 
> various Slots in:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov-registry/download.php/7257/SubmitObjectsRequest_eGMS1.xml 
>
>
> and the name attribute. The current URIs are only meant to be 
> placeholders and would be replaced by whatever URI prefix(s) we agree 
> upon for the pilot.
>
Paul said in a phone call that UK gov prefer URLs to be used instead of 
URNs based upon a past decision. I would like to advocate a URN based 
approach.

To understand why, consider the following URN based example:

<rim:Slot name="urn:gov:uk:egms:date:copyrighted" ...


As we can see URNs fit the need very well when specifying refinement on 
a eGMS term.

The URL alternative would look something like:

<rim:Slot 
name="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/registry/eGMS/date.html#copyrighted"; 
...                           

What if there was another level in future as the binding evolves? As in:

<rim:Slot name="urn:gov:uk:egms:date:copyrighted:uk" ...


Vs.

<rim:Slot name="urn:gov:uk:egms:date:copyrighted:international" ...


The URN based approach would handle this just fine but the URL approach 
would be tricky.

Then there is also the issue of how do we make the URL resolve to some 
web page location.

I really think that a URN based approach makes sense here and is also 
consistent with registry conventions.
Can we get closure on a decision here since it prevents me from making 
progress? Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh