On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Martin Swany wrote:
There are reasons for a bulkier, less context-sensitive identifier scheme, but I'm not sure the NML list is the right place to hash this out since the identifier schemes are relevant more for lookup and distribution than basic description. For the sake of NML, i'd prefer to leave it at "identifiers are globally unique strings".
I think that it is in scope for NML. We might end up with more than one way to do it, but I think that leaving it as just a string limits what we can do.
First, I'm against coming up with multiple ways to do it, unless the multiple ways are based on completely different uses of the schema that will never interact. (Or unless we absolutely can't agree - which would seem a shame.) Lets not make interoperability any harder than we have to. Second, I agree that it is in-scope for NML. However, it is just as in- scope for the other groups Aaron mentioned. At a bare minimum the other groups Aaron mentioned (and probably others) should be invited in on the discussion. jeff