Concern at new URI schemes for namespaces
Concern has arisen in the last month over the trend toward creation of new URI schemes for use as namespace identifiers in new XML applications.
Writing on the W3C's URI list, Tim Berners-Lee expressed surprise at WebDAV's use of the DAV: scheme:
The DAV spec really invents a totally new whole URI scheme just for a
namespace?
If there has to be a root of anything anywhere, then with whom will it be
safe?
The root of the URI space now become a free for all...
Earlier in the month, Dan Connolly had commented on the SyncML spec's use of the syncml: URI scheme.
I wonder why they used a new URI scheme for
their XML namespace; what's wrong with http://syncml.org/2000/metinf ?
While inventing new URI schemes for namespace purposes certainly seems gratuitous, it is worth some investigation as to why this is happening--it may be that http: URIs for namespaces still cause discomfort and confusion, causing some to opt for a custom solution.
Re: Concern at new URI schemes for namespaces (Robin Berjon - 00:00, 28 Jan 2001) There's one solution to this confusion: spread RDDL and sread it fast ! Once it is out there and starts being used widely enough, people will start wanting to use http instead of just about any garbage scheme that comes to their mind.
Re: Concern at new URI schemes for namespaces (James Marca - 04:57, 27 Jan 2001) I am sure this topic is beaten to death in the
relevant mailing lists, but I am not on those
lists so I'll add my 2 bits here. As a newcomer
and evangelist of XML in my department, I find it
a bit odd to say the least that I am arbitrarily
selecting our department web address and tacking
on an ending to specify the namespace. The
department sysadmin and my PhD advisor are soon
going to notice this fact, and will probably ask
who gave me permission to use that URL, and so
on.
I will explain to them that the namespace doesn't
point to anything, it just has to be unique. They
will probably buy that argument, but they also
might wonder if I am up to something or have
somehow cracked the web server.
So perhaps the urge to invent new protocols is
two-fold. First, the newcomer to namespaces has
to become accustomed to the fact that the
http://blah.blah.edu/things points to nothing (I
notice that even the parser of this text presumes
that http:// points to something and assigns it a
link!).
Second the address that is used is typically
something that is assigned by the local sys/web
admin, and using it without their permission
might inspire a turf battle. If had invented
gpsdata://www.its.uci.edu, well, no one would
ever mistake that for http:, and I'd have no
explaining to do. Further, there is nothing to
prevent me from inventing gpsdata://, so that
path could easily be the path of least
resistance. And if I was more egotistical, why
not invent james:// as the root of all the
namespaces that my code requires?
Hope this adds more signal than noise to the
argument.
James |