[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL_DE - Notes from the meeting to help with minutes and issues list.
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