OASIS Member Discuss

Expand all | Collapse all

OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

  • 1.  OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 05-30-2007 16:45
    Some OASIS TC's use an HTTP URI when they define an XML 
    Namespace.  Some TC's have started using RDDL as a namespace document 
    when these namespace URI's are dereferenced using HTTP GET.
    
    Other OASIS TC's use URN's to identify their XML Namespace.
    
    I suggest that OASIS provide a mechanism to resolve a namespace 
    document (RDDL or other) using HTTP and passing in the namespace URN 
    in a query parameter.
    
    For example,
    
    http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL:DE:1.0
    
    would return a RDDL document associated with the EDXL-DE namespace.
    
    
    Paul
    
    
    


  • 2.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 13:44
    Paul:
    I think the objective is laudable but I don't see the point of the
    "http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=" part of the statement. Surely,
    if some application wants to do something with the "pure" (and on its
    own non-deferenceable) urn, then surely it will ba equipped to make that
    call using http get or whatever.
    
    By effectively tying a namespace to a derefereceable network endpoint
    and to specific and prescribed dereferencing mechanism, is there not a
    danger that you:
    - either limit what can be legitimately found at the network endpoint to
    an RDDL file only, cutting out other possible uses of the namespace;
    - or creating false expectations and possible architectural problems
    when unpredictable results come from finding something other than a RDDL
    document at the end of the pipe.
    
    On the other hand, I'd be in favour of a mechanism by which RDDL
    documents, when available, can be accessed using a prescribed OASIS
    managed URL to which you would tack the namespace urn.
    
    Regards,
    
    Peter
    
    -------------
    Peter F Brown
    Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
    Founder, Pensive.eu
    Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
    Lecturer at XML Summer School
    ---
    Personal:
    +43 676 610 0250
    http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
    www.XMLbyStealth.net
    www.xmlsummerschool.com
    
    
    


  • 3.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 14:03

    The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst other subjects related to
    metadata) here:
            http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html

    These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP scheme URIs and that there
    be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are permitted for use, but HTTP
    scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved without additional machinery. Note
    that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism:
            http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.html#urnResolution

    An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX TC's WS-RM namespace URI:
            http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702

    Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN scheme namespace. I suspect that
    some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no
    reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if OASIS is going to drop off the face of
    the earth anytime soon.

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986


    "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 09:43:24 AM:

    > Paul:
    > I think the objective is laudable but I don't see the point of the
    > "http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=" part of the statement. Surely,
    > if some application wants to do something with the "pure" (and on its
    > own non-deferenceable) urn, then surely it will ba equipped to make that
    > call using http get or whatever.
    >
    > By effectively tying a namespace to a derefereceable network endpoint
    > and to specific and prescribed dereferencing mechanism, is there not a
    > danger that you:
    > - either limit what can be legitimately found at the network endpoint to
    > an RDDL file only, cutting out other possible uses of the namespace;
    > - or creating false expectations and possible architectural problems
    > when unpredictable results come from finding something other than a RDDL
    > document at the end of the pipe.
    >
    > On the other hand, I'd be in favour of a mechanism by which RDDL
    > documents, when available, can be accessed using a prescribed OASIS
    > managed URL to which you would tack the namespace urn.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Peter
    >
    > -------------
    > Peter F Brown
    > Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
    > Founder, Pensive.eu
    > Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
    > Lecturer at XML Summer School
    > ---
    > Personal:
    > +43 676 610 0250
    > http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
    > www.XMLbyStealth.net
    > www.xmlsummerschool.com
    >
    >
    >


  • 4.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 14:46
    Of course it all depends on what you want to use the identifier for. I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well, something that helps identify the artefact being referenced. An RDDL document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor; it is intended to provide information about the identified artifact but, I would argue, is not the only thing that could be relevant at such an end point. As such there *should* be a distinction between the namespace urn and any mechanism to dereference it in a particular context for a particular purpose - whether OASIS provides it os not, is another question.
    
    The Topic Map community understands this intimately in their distinction between a "subject identifier" and a "subject indicator" and didn't get lost down the W3C blind alley of confusing labels and resources à la RDF... sorry, shouldn't have dragged that up ;-)
    
    Peter
    
    ==================
    From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
    Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    To: Peter F Brown
    Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces
    
    
    The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst other subjects related to 
    metadata) here: 
            http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html 
    
    These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP scheme URIs and that there 
    be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are permitted for use, but HTTP 
    scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved without additional machinery. Note 
    that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism: 
            http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.html#urnResolution 
    
    An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX TC's WS-RM namespace URI: 
            http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702 
    
    Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN scheme namespace. I suspect that 
    some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no 
    reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if OASIS is going to drop off the face of 
    the earth anytime soon. 
    
    Cheers, 
    
    Christopher Ferris
    STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986 
    
    "Peter F Brown" 


  • 5.  Re: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 15:02
    Peter
    
    You lost me here:
    
    Peter F Brown wrote:
    > you shouldn't find anything at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well, 
     > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.
     > An RDDL document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor;
    
    I'm not a great theoretician, but it seems to me that sticking RDDL+HTML 
    as the content dereferenced by an identifier URI is really useful. You 
    say its not the only thing that could be dereferenced. I agree - the 
    most common thing dereferenced from an identifier URI is a 404 Not Found 
    HTML :-)
    
    But seriously:
    
    1) Can you please give an example of something better or more 
    appropriate than a RDDL?
    2) Can you explain how I can get better information about the meaning of 
    a URN than I get from a well written HTML+RDDL document?
    
    Thanks
    Paul
    
    
    
    > 
    > ==================
    > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
    > Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    > To: Peter F Brown
    > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces
    > 
    > 
    > The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst other subjects related to 
    > metadata) here: 
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html 
    > 
    > These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP scheme URIs and that there 
    > be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are permitted for use, but HTTP 
    > scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved without additional machinery. Note 
    > that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism: 
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.html#urnResolution 
    > 
    > An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX TC's WS-RM namespace URI: 
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702 
    > 
    > Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN scheme namespace. I suspect that 
    > some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no 
    > reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if OASIS is going to drop off the face of 
    > the earth anytime soon. 
    > 
    > Cheers, 
    > 
    > Christopher Ferris
    > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > phone: +1 508 234 2986 
    > 
    > "Peter F Brown" 


  • 6.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 18:19
    >Paul Fremantle wrote:
    >
    >Peter
    >
    >You lost me here:
    >
    >Peter F Brown wrote:
    >> you shouldn't find anything at the end of a URI that purports to be an
    identifier except, well, 
    > > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.
    > > An RDDL document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor;
    >
    >I'm not a great theoretician, but it seems to me that sticking RDDL+HTML 
    >as the content dereferenced by an identifier URI is really useful. You 
    >say its not the only thing that could be dereferenced. I agree - the 
    >most common thing dereferenced from an identifier URI is a 404 Not Found 
    >HTML :-)
    >
    >But seriously:
    >
    >1) Can you please give an example of something better or more 
    >appropriate than a RDDL?
    
    I would not want to characterize it as either "something better" or
    "something more appropriate", but it's worth mentioning an XRDS (Extensible
    Resource Descriptor Sequence) document, defined by the OASIS XRI TC. It's
    specifically designed for lightweight service discovery, and in addition to
    being the format used by XRI resolution, it's also the format used by Yadis
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadis) and OpenID (www.openid.net). Details
    are in the current Working Draft of XRI Resolution 2.0:
    
    	
    Http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24286/xri-resolution-v2.0-
    wd-11-ed-02.doc  
    
    =Drummond 
    
    >2) Can you explain how I can get better information about the meaning of 
    >a URN than I get from a well written HTML+RDDL document?
    
    An XRDS document isn't going to give you "better information", just
    additional information.
    
    =Drummond (http://xri.net/=drummond.reed)   
    
    
    >Thanks
    >Paul
    >
    >
    >
    >> 
    >> ==================
    >> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
    >> Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    >> To: Peter F Brown
    >> Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    >> Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN
    namespaces
    >> 
    >> 
    >> The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst other
    subjects related to 
    >> metadata) here: 
    >>
    http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.ht
    ml 
    >> 
    >> These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP
    scheme URIs and that there 
    >> be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are
    permitted for use, but HTTP 
    >> scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved without
    additional machinery. Note 
    >> that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism: 
    >>
    http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCom
    mentaryV07.html#urnResolution 
    >> 
    >> An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX TC's
    WS-RM namespace URI: 
    >>         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702 
    >> 
    >> Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN
    scheme namespace. I suspect that 
    >> some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent
    identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no 
    >> reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if OASIS
    is going to drop off the face of 
    >> the earth anytime soon. 
    >> 
    >> Cheers, 
    >> 
    >> Christopher Ferris
    >> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    >> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    >> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    >> phone: +1 508 234 2986 
    >> 
    >> "Peter F Brown" 


  • 7.  Re: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 19:40
    Drummond
    
    Thanks VERY MUCH. I'll take a look - it looks really interesting.
    
    But this motivates me - even more than before - to think that URLs not 
    URNs are the right URIs to use as identifiers.
    
    Paul
    
    =drummond.reed wrote:
    >> Paul Fremantle wrote:
    >>
    >> Peter
    >>
    >> You lost me here:
    >>
    >> Peter F Brown wrote:
    >>> you shouldn't find anything at the end of a URI that purports to be an
    > identifier except, well, 
    >>> something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.
    >>> An RDDL document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor;
    >> I'm not a great theoretician, but it seems to me that sticking RDDL+HTML 
    >> as the content dereferenced by an identifier URI is really useful. You 
    >> say its not the only thing that could be dereferenced. I agree - the 
    >> most common thing dereferenced from an identifier URI is a 404 Not Found 
    >> HTML :-)
    >>
    >> But seriously:
    >>
    >> 1) Can you please give an example of something better or more 
    >> appropriate than a RDDL?
    > 
    > I would not want to characterize it as either "something better" or
    > "something more appropriate", but it's worth mentioning an XRDS (Extensible
    > Resource Descriptor Sequence) document, defined by the OASIS XRI TC. It's
    > specifically designed for lightweight service discovery, and in addition to
    > being the format used by XRI resolution, it's also the format used by Yadis
    > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadis) and OpenID (www.openid.net). Details
    > are in the current Working Draft of XRI Resolution 2.0:
    > 
    > 	
    > Http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24286/xri-resolution-v2.0-
    > wd-11-ed-02.doc  
    > 
    > =Drummond 
    > 
    >> 2) Can you explain how I can get better information about the meaning of 
    >> a URN than I get from a well written HTML+RDDL document?
    > 
    > An XRDS document isn't going to give you "better information", just
    > additional information.
    > 
    > =Drummond (http://xri.net/=drummond.reed)   
    > 
    > 
    >> Thanks
    >> Paul
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> ==================
    >>> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
    >>> Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    >>> To: Peter F Brown
    >>> Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    >>> Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN
    > namespaces
    >>>
    >>> The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst other
    > subjects related to 
    >>> metadata) here: 
    >>>
    > http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.ht
    > ml 
    >>> These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP
    > scheme URIs and that there 
    >>> be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are
    > permitted for use, but HTTP 
    >>> scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved without
    > additional machinery. Note 
    >>> that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism: 
    >>>
    > http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCom
    > mentaryV07.html#urnResolution 
    >>> An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX TC's
    > WS-RM namespace URI: 
    >>>         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702 
    >>>
    >>> Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN
    > scheme namespace. I suspect that 
    >>> some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent
    > identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no 
    >>> reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if OASIS
    > is going to drop off the face of 
    >>> the earth anytime soon. 
    >>>
    >>> Cheers, 
    >>>
    >>> Christopher Ferris
    >>> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    >>> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    >>> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    >>> phone: +1 508 234 2986 
    >>>
    >>> "Peter F Brown" 


  • 8.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 15:42

    Peter, you wrote:

    > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.


    If a RDDL isn't someting that helps identify the artefact identified, when that artefact is a namespace,
    then I don't know what it is.

    A namespace is an abstraction. It has an identifier. A namespace is NOT a schema document. I might
    have multiple 'schema' that each are legitimate means of validating a document that includes
    elements and attributes for a given namespace (e.g. XML Schema, RNG, Schematron, DTD, etc.)
    They may be isomorphic or complimentary in nature.

    Having a namespace document (RDDL) available as the resource retrieved when you dereference
    the namespace URI helps 'identify the artefact' that is referenced by that URI. In the case of the
    namespace documents that have been designed for OASIS specs, the informative value is increased by
    virtue of the fact that the specifications which define the semantics of the namespace components
    are also linked and the namespace versioning policy is provided.

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986


    "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 10:46:11 AM:

    > Of course it all depends on what you want to use the identifier for.
    > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced. An RDDL
    > document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor; it is
    > intended to provide information about the identified artifact but, I
    > would argue, is not the only thing that could be relevant at such an
    > end point. As such there *should* be a distinction between the
    > namespace urn and any mechanism to dereference it in a particular
    > context for a particular purpose - whether OASIS provides it os not,
    > is another question.
    >
    > The Topic Map community understands this intimately in their
    > distinction between a "subject identifier" and a "subject indicator"
    > and didn't get lost down the W3C blind alley of confusing labels and
    > resources à la RDF... sorry, shouldn't have dragged that up ;-)
    >
    > Peter
    >
    > ==================
    > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    > To: Peter F Brown
    > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > URN namespaces
    >
    >
    > The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst
    > other subjects related to
    > metadata) here:
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html
    >
    > These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP
    > scheme URIs and that there
    > be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are
    > permitted for use, but HTTP
    > scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved
    > without additional machinery. Note
    > that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism:
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.
    > html#urnResolution
    >
    > An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX
    > TC's WS-RM namespace URI:
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
    >
    > Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN
    > scheme namespace. I suspect that
    > some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent
    > identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no
    > reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if
    > OASIS is going to drop off the face of
    > the earth anytime soon.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Christopher Ferris
    > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    >
    > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 09:43:24 AM:
    >
    > > Paul:
    > > I think the objective is laudable but I don't see the point of the
    > > "http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=" part of the statement. Surely,
    > > if some application wants to do something with the "pure" (and on its
    > > own non-deferenceable) urn, then surely it will ba equipped to make that
    > > call using http get or whatever.
    > >
    > > By effectively tying a namespace to a derefereceable network endpoint
    > > and to specific and prescribed dereferencing mechanism, is there not a
    > > danger that you:
    > > - either limit what can be legitimately found at the network endpoint to
    > > an RDDL file only, cutting out other possible uses of the namespace;
    > > - or creating false expectations and possible architectural problems
    > > when unpredictable results come from finding something other than a RDDL
    > > document at the end of the pipe.
    > >
    > > On the other hand, I'd be in favour of a mechanism by which RDDL
    > > documents, when available, can be accessed using a prescribed OASIS
    > > managed URL to which you would tack the namespace urn.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > -------------
    > > Peter F Brown
    > > Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
    > > Founder, Pensive.eu
    > > Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
    > > Lecturer at XML Summer School
    > > ---
    > > Personal:
    > > +43 676 610 0250
    > > http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
    > > www.XMLbyStealth.net
    > > www.xmlsummerschool.com
    > >
    > >
    > >


  • 9.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-18-2007 19:21
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    RDDL does not help identify; it helps describe and in a highly context specific way

    Peter

    From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: 18 June 2007 17:42
    To: Peter F Brown
    Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces


    Peter, you wrote:

    > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.


    If a RDDL isn't someting that helps identify the artefact identified, when that artefact is a namespace,
    then I don't know what it is.

    A namespace is an abstraction. It has an identifier. A namespace is NOT a schema document. I might
    have multiple 'schema' that each are legitimate means of validating a document that includes
    elements and attributes for a given namespace (e.g. XML Schema, RNG, Schematron, DTD, etc.)
    They may be isomorphic or complimentary in nature.

    Having a namespace document (RDDL) available as the resource retrieved when you dereference
    the namespace URI helps 'identify the artefact' that is referenced by that URI. In the case of the
    namespace documents that have been designed for OASIS specs, the informative value is increased by
    virtue of the fact that the specifications which define the semantics of the namespace components
    are also linked and the namespace versioning policy is provided.

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986


    "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 10:46:11 AM:

    > Of course it all depends on what you want to use the identifier for.
    > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced. An RDDL
    > document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor; it is
    > intended to provide information about the identified artifact but, I
    > would argue, is not the only thing that could be relevant at such an
    > end point. As such there *should* be a distinction between the
    > namespace urn and any mechanism to dereference it in a particular
    > context for a particular purpose - whether OASIS provides it os not,
    > is another question.
    >
    > The Topic Map community understands this intimately in their
    > distinction between a "subject identifier" and a "subject indicator"
    > and didn't get lost down the W3C blind alley of confusing labels and
    > resources à la RDF... sorry, shouldn't have dragged that up ;-)
    >
    > Peter
    >
    > ==================
    > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    > To: Peter F Brown
    > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > URN namespaces
    >
    >
    > The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst
    > other subjects related to
    > metadata) here:
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html
    >
    > These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP
    > scheme URIs and that there
    > be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are
    > permitted for use, but HTTP
    > scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved
    > without additional machinery. Note
    > that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism:
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.
    > html#urnResolution
    >
    > An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX
    > TC's WS-RM namespace URI:
    >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
    >
    > Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN
    > scheme namespace. I suspect that
    > some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent
    > identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no
    > reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if
    > OASIS is going to drop off the face of
    > the earth anytime soon.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Christopher Ferris
    > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    >
    > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 09:43:24 AM:
    >
    > > Paul:
    > > I think the objective is laudable but I don't see the point of the
    > > "http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=" part of the statement. Surely,
    > > if some application wants to do something with the "pure" (and on its
    > > own non-deferenceable) urn, then surely it will ba equipped to make that
    > > call using http get or whatever.
    > >
    > > By effectively tying a namespace to a derefereceable network endpoint
    > > and to specific and prescribed dereferencing mechanism, is there not a
    > > danger that you:
    > > - either limit what can be legitimately found at the network endpoint to
    > > an RDDL file only, cutting out other possible uses of the namespace;
    > > - or creating false expectations and possible architectural problems
    > > when unpredictable results come from finding something other than a RDDL
    > > document at the end of the pipe.
    > >
    > > On the other hand, I'd be in favour of a mechanism by which RDDL
    > > documents, when available, can be accessed using a prescribed OASIS
    > > managed URL to which you would tack the namespace urn.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > -------------
    > > Peter F Brown
    > > Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
    > > Founder, Pensive.eu
    > > Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
    > > Lecturer at XML Summer School
    > > ---
    > > Personal:
    > > +43 676 610 0250
    > > http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
    > > www.XMLbyStealth.net
    > > www.xmlsummerschool.com
    > >
    > >
    > >


    > > From: Paul Denning [mailto:pauld@mitre.org]
    > > Sent: 30 May 2007 18:45
    > > To: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
    > > Subject: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN
    > > namespaces
    > >
    > > Some OASIS TC's use an HTTP URI when they define an XML
    > > Namespace.  Some TC's have started using RDDL as a namespace document
    > > when these namespace URI's are dereferenced using HTTP GET.
    > >
    > > Other OASIS TC's use URN's to identify their XML Namespace.
    > >
    > > I suggest that OASIS provide a mechanism to resolve a namespace
    > > document (RDDL or other) using HTTP and passing in the namespace URN
    > > in a query parameter.
    > >
    > > For example,
    > >
    > > http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL
    > > :DE:1.0
    > >
    > > would return a RDDL document associated with the EDXL-DE namespace.
    > >
    > >
    > > Paul
    > >
    > >



  • 10.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-19-2007 11:32

    Possibly, my response was poorly communicated. What I was trying to convey is that because a namespace
    is an abstraction and not a thing/artefact, that a namespace __document__, something that fully describes
    the namespace, is an effective manifestation of the virtual abstract resource (namesapce) that  is identified by
    the namespace URI.

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986


    "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 03:21:09 PM:

    > RDDL does not help identify; it helps describe and in a highly
    > context specific way

    >  
    > Peter
    >  
    > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: 18 June 2007 17:42
    > To: Peter F Brown
    > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > URN namespaces

    >  
    >
    > Peter, you wrote:
    >
    > > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.
    >
    > If a RDDL isn't someting that helps identify the artefact
    > identified, when that artefact is a namespace,
    > then I don't know what it is.
    >
    > A namespace is an abstraction. It has an identifier. A namespace is
    > NOT a schema document. I might
    > have multiple 'schema' that each are legitimate means of validating
    > a document that includes
    > elements and attributes for a given namespace (e.g. XML Schema, RNG,
    > Schematron, DTD, etc.)
    > They may be isomorphic or complimentary in nature.
    >
    > Having a namespace document (RDDL) available as the resource
    > retrieved when you dereference
    > the namespace URI helps 'identify the artefact' that is referenced
    > by that URI. In the case of the
    > namespace documents that have been designed for OASIS specs, the
    > informative value is increased by
    > virtue of the fact that the specifications which define the
    > semantics of the namespace components
    > are also linked and the namespace versioning policy is provided.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Christopher Ferris
    > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    >
    > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 10:46:11 AM:
    >
    > > Of course it all depends on what you want to use the identifier for.
    > > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced. An RDDL
    > > document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor; it is
    > > intended to provide information about the identified artifact but, I
    > > would argue, is not the only thing that could be relevant at such an
    > > end point. As such there *should* be a distinction between the
    > > namespace urn and any mechanism to dereference it in a particular
    > > context for a particular purpose - whether OASIS provides it os not,
    > > is another question.
    > >
    > > The Topic Map community understands this intimately in their
    > > distinction between a "subject identifier" and a "subject indicator"
    > > and didn't get lost down the W3C blind alley of confusing labels and
    > > resources à la RDF... sorry, shouldn't have dragged that up ;-)
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > ==================
    > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > > Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    > > To: Peter F Brown
    > > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > > URN namespaces
    > >
    > >
    > > The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst
    > > other subjects related to
    > > metadata) here:
    > >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html
    > >
    > > These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP
    > > scheme URIs and that there
    > > be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are
    > > permitted for use, but HTTP
    > > scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved
    > > without additional machinery. Note
    > > that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism:
    > >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.
    > > html#urnResolution
    > >
    > > An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX
    > > TC's WS-RM namespace URI:
    > >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
    > >
    > > Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN
    > > scheme namespace. I suspect that
    > > some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent
    > > identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no
    > > reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if
    > > OASIS is going to drop off the face of
    > > the earth anytime soon.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > >
    > > Christopher Ferris
    > > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    > >
    > > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 09:43:24 AM:
    > >
    > > > Paul:
    > > > I think the objective is laudable but I don't see the point of the
    > > > "http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=" part of the statement. Surely,
    > > > if some application wants to do something with the "pure" (and on its
    > > > own non-deferenceable) urn, then surely it will ba equipped to make that
    > > > call using http get or whatever.
    > > >
    > > > By effectively tying a namespace to a derefereceable network endpoint
    > > > and to specific and prescribed dereferencing mechanism, is there not a
    > > > danger that you:
    > > > - either limit what can be legitimately found at the network endpoint to
    > > > an RDDL file only, cutting out other possible uses of the namespace;
    > > > - or creating false expectations and possible architectural problems
    > > > when unpredictable results come from finding something other than a RDDL
    > > > document at the end of the pipe.
    > > >
    > > > On the other hand, I'd be in favour of a mechanism by which RDDL
    > > > documents, when available, can be accessed using a prescribed OASIS
    > > > managed URL to which you would tack the namespace urn.
    > > >
    > > > Regards,
    > > >
    > > > Peter
    > > >
    > > > -------------
    > > > Peter F Brown
    > > > Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
    > > > Founder, Pensive.eu
    > > > Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
    > > > Lecturer at XML Summer School
    > > > ---
    > > > Personal:
    > > > +43 676 610 0250
    > > > http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
    > > > www.XMLbyStealth.net
    > > > www.xmlsummerschool.com
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >


  • 11.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-19-2007 22:46
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Christopher:

    That is indeed clearer, but my concern is still with the idea of a “namespace document”: not sure what such an artefact is intended to be or to do (no Confucius please David) or indeed how an RDDL document fits such a bill, particularly as it doesn’t seem to have any schema or prescribed model behind it.

    But I can see also that we may be talking at cross purposes on different but related issues…

    Regards,

    Peter

    From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: 19 June 2007 13:32
    To: Peter F Brown
    Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces


    Possibly, my response was poorly communicated. What I was trying to convey is that because a namespace
    is an abstraction and not a thing/artefact, that a namespace __document__, something that fully describes
    the namespace, is an effective manifestation of the virtual abstract resource (namesapce) that  is identified by
    the namespace URI.

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986


    "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 03:21:09 PM:

    > RDDL does not help identify; it helps describe and in a highly
    > context specific way

    >  
    > Peter
    >  
    > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: 18 June 2007 17:42
    > To: Peter F Brown
    > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > URN namespaces

    >  
    >
    > Peter, you wrote:
    >
    > > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.
    >
    > If a RDDL isn't someting that helps identify the artefact
    > identified, when that artefact is a namespace,
    > then I don't know what it is.
    >
    > A namespace is an abstraction. It has an identifier. A namespace is
    > NOT a schema document. I might
    > have multiple 'schema' that each are legitimate means of validating
    > a document that includes
    > elements and attributes for a given namespace (e.g. XML Schema, RNG,
    > Schematron, DTD, etc.)
    > They may be isomorphic or complimentary in nature.
    >
    > Having a namespace document (RDDL) available as the resource
    > retrieved when you dereference
    > the namespace URI helps 'identify the artefact' that is referenced
    > by that URI. In the case of the
    > namespace documents that have been designed for OASIS specs, the
    > informative value is increased by
    > virtue of the fact that the specifications which define the
    > semantics of the namespace components
    > are also linked and the namespace versioning policy is provided.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Christopher Ferris
    > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    >
    > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 10:46:11 AM:
    >
    > > Of course it all depends on what you want to use the identifier for.
    > > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced. An RDDL
    > > document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor; it is
    > > intended to provide information about the identified artifact but, I
    > > would argue, is not the only thing that could be relevant at such an
    > > end point. As such there *should* be a distinction between the
    > > namespace urn and any mechanism to dereference it in a particular
    > > context for a particular purpose - whether OASIS provides it os not,
    > > is another question.
    > >
    > > The Topic Map community understands this intimately in their
    > > distinction between a "subject identifier" and a "subject indicator"
    > > and didn't get lost down the W3C blind alley of confusing labels and
    > > resources à la RDF... sorry, shouldn't have dragged that up ;-)
    > >
    > > Peter
    > >
    > > ==================
    > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > > Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    > > To: Peter F Brown
    > > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > > URN namespaces
    > >
    > >
    > > The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst
    > > other subjects related to
    > > metadata) here:
    > >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html
    > >
    > > These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP
    > > scheme URIs and that there
    > > be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are
    > > permitted for use, but HTTP
    > > scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved
    > > without additional machinery. Note
    > > that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism:
    > >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.
    > > html#urnResolution
    > >
    > > An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX
    > > TC's WS-RM namespace URI:
    > >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
    > >
    > > Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN
    > > scheme namespace. I suspect that
    > > some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent
    > > identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no
    > > reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if
    > > OASIS is going to drop off the face of
    > > the earth anytime soon.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > >
    > > Christopher Ferris
    > > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    > >
    > > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 09:43:24 AM:
    > >
    > > > Paul:
    > > > I think the objective is laudable but I don't see the point of the
    > > > "http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=" part of the statement. Surely,
    > > > if some application wants to do something with the "pure" (and on its
    > > > own non-deferenceable) urn, then surely it will ba equipped to make that
    > > > call using http get or whatever.
    > > >
    > > > By effectively tying a namespace to a derefereceable network endpoint
    > > > and to specific and prescribed dereferencing mechanism, is there not a
    > > > danger that you:
    > > > - either limit what can be legitimately found at the network endpoint to
    > > > an RDDL file only, cutting out other possible uses of the namespace;
    > > > - or creating false expectations and possible architectural problems
    > > > when unpredictable results come from finding something other than a RDDL
    > > > document at the end of the pipe.
    > > >
    > > > On the other hand, I'd be in favour of a mechanism by which RDDL
    > > > documents, when available, can be accessed using a prescribed OASIS
    > > > managed URL to which you would tack the namespace urn.
    > > >
    > > > Regards,
    > > >
    > > > Peter
    > > >
    > > > -------------
    > > > Peter F Brown
    > > > Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
    > > > Founder, Pensive.eu
    > > > Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
    > > > Lecturer at XML Summer School
    > > > ---
    > > > Personal:
    > > > +43 676 610 0250
    > > > http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
    > > > www.XMLbyStealth.net
    > > > www.xmlsummerschool.com
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >


    > > > From: Paul Denning [mailto:pauld@mitre.org]
    > > > Sent: 30 May 2007 18:45
    > > > To: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
    > > > Subject: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN
    > > > namespaces
    > > >
    > > > Some OASIS TC's use an HTTP URI when they define an XML
    > > > Namespace.  Some TC's have started using RDDL as a namespace document
    > > > when these namespace URI's are dereferenced using HTTP GET.
    > > >
    > > > Other OASIS TC's use URN's to identify their XML Namespace.
    > > >
    > > > I suggest that OASIS provide a mechanism to resolve a namespace
    > > > document (RDDL or other) using HTTP and passing in the namespace URN
    > > > in a query parameter.
    > > >
    > > > For example,
    > > >
    > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:EDXL
    > > > :DE:1.0
    > > >
    > > > would return a RDDL document associated with the EDXL-DE namespace.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Paul
    > > >
    > > >



  • 12.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-20-2007 12:53

    This link is to the W3C TAG draft finding on namespace documents:
            http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/

    Hopefully, that will help.

    Cheers,

    Christopher Ferris
    STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    phone: +1 508 234 2986


    "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/19/2007 06:46:25 PM:

    > Christopher:

    > That is indeed clearer, but my concern is still with the idea of a
    > “namespace document”: not sure what such an artefact is intended to
    > be or to do (no Confucius please David) or indeed how an RDDL
    > document fits such a bill, particularly as it doesn’t seem to have
    > any schema or prescribed model behind it.

    >  
    > But I can see also that we may be talking at cross purposes on
    > different but related issues…

    >  
    > Regards,
    >  
    > Peter
    >  
    > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: 19 June 2007 13:32
    > To: Peter F Brown
    > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > URN namespaces

    >  
    >
    > Possibly, my response was poorly communicated. What I was trying to
    > convey is that because a namespace
    > is an abstraction and not a thing/artefact, that a namespace
    > __document__, something that fully describes
    > the namespace, is an effective manifestation of the virtual abstract
    > resource (namesapce) that  is identified by
    > the namespace URI.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Christopher Ferris
    > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    >
    > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 03:21:09 PM:
    >
    > > RDDL does not help identify; it helps describe and in a highly
    > > context specific way
    > >  
    > > Peter
    > >  
    > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > > Sent: 18 June 2007 17:42
    > > To: Peter F Brown
    > > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > > URN namespaces
    > >  
    > >
    > > Peter, you wrote:
    > >
    > > > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > > > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > > > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced.
    > >
    > > If a RDDL isn't someting that helps identify the artefact
    > > identified, when that artefact is a namespace,
    > > then I don't know what it is.
    > >
    > > A namespace is an abstraction. It has an identifier. A namespace is
    > > NOT a schema document. I might
    > > have multiple 'schema' that each are legitimate means of validating
    > > a document that includes
    > > elements and attributes for a given namespace (e.g. XML Schema, RNG,
    > > Schematron, DTD, etc.)
    > > They may be isomorphic or complimentary in nature.
    > >
    > > Having a namespace document (RDDL) available as the resource
    > > retrieved when you dereference
    > > the namespace URI helps 'identify the artefact' that is referenced
    > > by that URI. In the case of the
    > > namespace documents that have been designed for OASIS specs, the
    > > informative value is increased by
    > > virtue of the fact that the specifications which define the
    > > semantics of the namespace components
    > > are also linked and the namespace versioning policy is provided.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > >
    > > Christopher Ferris
    > > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    > >
    > > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 10:46:11 AM:
    > >
    > > > Of course it all depends on what you want to use the identifier for.
    > > > I would argue, always have argued, that you shouldn't find anything
    > > > at the end of a URI that purports to be an identifier except, well,
    > > > something that helps identify the artefact being referenced. An RDDL
    > > > document is not an identifier - it is a resource descriptor; it is
    > > > intended to provide information about the identified artifact but, I
    > > > would argue, is not the only thing that could be relevant at such an
    > > > end point. As such there *should* be a distinction between the
    > > > namespace urn and any mechanism to dereference it in a particular
    > > > context for a particular purpose - whether OASIS provides it os not,
    > > > is another question.
    > > >
    > > > The Topic Map community understands this intimately in their
    > > > distinction between a "subject identifier" and a "subject indicator"
    > > > and didn't get lost down the W3C blind alley of confusing labels and
    > > > resources à la RDF... sorry, shouldn't have dragged that up ;-)
    > > >
    > > > Peter
    > > >
    > > > ==================
    > > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    > > > Sent: 18 June 2007 16:03
    > > > To: Peter F Brown
    > > > Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    > > > Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for
    > > > URN namespaces
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > The OASIS TAB has published guidelines for namespace URIs (amongst
    > > > other subjects related to
    > > > metadata) here:
    > > >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > > > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNaming.html
    > > >
    > > > These guidelines include recommendation that namespace URIs be HTTP
    > > > scheme URIs and that there
    > > > be a published RDDL document at the namespace URI location. URNs are
    > > > permitted for use, but HTTP
    > > > scheme URIs are preferred/recommended since they can be resolved
    > > > without additional machinery. Note
    > > > that OASIS hs no plans to implement such a resolution mechanism:
    > > >         http://docs.oasis-open.
    > > > org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV07.
    > > > html#urnResolution
    > > >
    > > > An example of these guidelines in action can be found with the WS-RX
    > > > TC's WS-RM namespace URI:
    > > >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200702
    > > >
    > > > Frankly, I don't personally see any material benefit to use of a URN
    > > > scheme namespace. I suspect that
    > > > some believe that by using a URN, they have created a 'permanent
    > > > identifier'. Well, frankly, there is no
    > > > reason why an HTTP scheme URI cannot be 'permanent'. It isn't as if
    > > > OASIS is going to drop off the face of
    > > > the earth anytime soon.
    > > >
    > > > Cheers,
    > > >
    > > > Christopher Ferris
    > > > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    > > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    > > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    > > > phone: +1 508 234 2986
    > > >
    > > > "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu> wrote on 06/18/2007 09:43:24 AM:
    > > >
    > > > > Paul:
    > > > > I think the objective is laudable but I don't see the point of the
    > > > > "http://www.oasis-open.org/namespace?ns=" part of the statement. Surely,
    > > > > if some application wants to do something with the "pure" (and on its
    > > > > own non-deferenceable) urn, then surely it will ba equipped tomake that
    > > > > call using http get or whatever.
    > > > >
    > > > > By effectively tying a namespace to a derefereceable network endpoint
    > > > > and to specific and prescribed dereferencing mechanism, is there not a
    > > > > danger that you:
    > > > > - either limit what can be legitimately found at the network endpoint to
    > > > > an RDDL file only, cutting out other possible uses of the namespace;
    > > > > - or creating false expectations and possible architectural problems
    > > > > when unpredictable results come from finding something other than a RDDL
    > > > > document at the end of the pipe.
    > > > >
    > > > > On the other hand, I'd be in favour of a mechanism by which RDDL
    > > > > documents, when available, can be accessed using a prescribed OASIS
    > > > > managed URL to which you would tack the namespace urn.
    > > > >
    > > > > Regards,
    > > > >
    > > > > Peter
    > > > >
    > > > > -------------
    > > > > Peter F Brown
    > > > > Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group
    > > > > Founder, Pensive.eu
    > > > > Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
    > > > > Lecturer at XML Summer School
    > > > > ---
    > > > > Personal:
    > > > > +43 676 610 0250
    > > > > http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
    > > > > www.XMLbyStealth.net
    > > > > www.xmlsummerschool.com
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >


  • 13.  RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS namespace documents for URN namespaces

    Posted 06-20-2007 13:07
    http://del.icio.us/mitrepauld/xmlns+tag
    
    Above are a few bookmarks to W3C info about namespace docs that may help.
    
    Paul
    
    At 06:46 PM 2007-06-19, Peter F Brown wrote:
    >Christopher:
    >That is indeed clearer, but my concern is still 
    >with the idea of a “namespace document”: not 
    >sure what such an artefact is intended to be or 
    >to do (no Confucius please David) or indeed how 
    >an RDDL document fits such a bill, particularly 
    >as it doesn’t seem to have any schema or prescribed model behind it.
    >
    >But I can see also that we may be talking at 
    >cross purposes on different but related issues…
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    >Peter
    >
    >From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
    >Sent: 19 June 2007 13:32
    >To: Peter F Brown
    >Cc: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; robin.cover@oasis-open.org
    >Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] OASIS 
    >namespace documents for URN namespaces
    >
    >
    >Possibly, my response was poorly communicated. 
    >What I was trying to convey is that because a namespace
    >is an abstraction and not a thing/artefact, that 
    >a namespace __document__, something that fully describes
    >the namespace, is an effective manifestation of 
    >the virtual abstract resource (namesapce) that  is identified by
    >the namespace URI.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Christopher Ferris
    >STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
    >email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
    >blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
    >phone: +1 508 234 2986
    >
    >"Peter F Brown"