OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

entity-resolution message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: system IDs and URIs


On 17 May 2001, John Cowan wrote:

> Absolutely.  What I wanted to investigate was not eliminating generic
> URIs, but subsuming system ids under generic URIs.
> 
> In particular, is there any merit to allowing a URI to be mapped
> one way when it is a system identifier and another way when it is
> being used for something else?  We rejected making such a capability
> general, with separate mappings for stylesheets, XML Schemas,
> RDF Schemas, etc. etc.  Why should system identifiers get their
> own private mapping?
> 
> I don't think that 9401 compatibility is a sufficient argument,
> because 9401 catalogs don't allow mapping any URIs that aren't
> system identifiers.
> 
> Norm says it would confuse users to have only one type of URI
> processing.  Me, I think it would confuse users to have two different
> types.

OTOH, we do have two different types of urn mappings as a subset 
of URI mappings, one of which happens when it starts with 
urn:publicid, and the other for every other URN, which of course is 
a subset of URIs; why is that not confusing if having both system 
and URI mappings is?


Lauren


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC