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

["Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>]

Farrukh,

We have changed from the "#" to "/". This gets over that limitation.

Regards

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
> Sent: 21 June 2004 11:55
> To: Paul Spencer
> Cc: Egov-Registry
> Subject: Re: [egov-registry] Need for standard URI structure (Was Re:
> [egov-registry] regrep)
>
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
>
> >Farrukh,
> >
> >This is what I have put in the document I am preparing:
> >
> >====
> >When mapping to the ebRIM, URIs are used as identifiers in
> various places.
> >The two types of URI usually used in such cases are URNs (e.g.
> >urn:gov:uk:egms:date) and URLs (e.g.
> >http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/terms/copyrighted). In general, OASIS
> prefers the
> >use of the URN.
> >
> >However, the e-GMS is based on Dublin Core, which uses URLs to specify
> >metadata names. This is an extract from an email from Maewyn Cumming:
> >
> >----
> >We had thought about this for the e-GMS application profile and used the
> >format http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/terms/accessibility  for each element,
> >refinement etc. This follows the Dublin Core model, and is what
> we have put
> >into the AP (though with the caveat that none of these URLS actually work
> >yet). I'd like to keep following the same format.
> >----
> >
> >In discussion, it was agreed that a refinement would use an additional
> >oblique, such as http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/terms/date/created.
> >
> >This is the format to be used for e-GMS metadata but does not
> constrain the
> >format for other types of metadata.
> >====
> >
> >I think this closes this topic.
> >
> >
> OK. You did not provide a solution to the limitation I pointed out in my
> past email with use of URLs (inability to handles more than 1 level of
> refinedments).  I assume then that the risks have been considered and
> an informed decision has been made. Thanks.
>
> >Regards
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
> >>Sent: 18 June 2004 19:09
> >>To: Egov-Registry
> >>Subject: Re: [egov-registry] Need for standard URI structure (Was Re:
> >>[egov-registry] regrep)
> >>
> >>
> >>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/downloa
> >>
> >>
> >d.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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>