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:
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986
"Peter F Brown" <>
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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Denning [mailto:]
> Sent: 30 May 2007 18:45
> To:
> 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
>
>
