Hi Aaron, Aaron Brown wrote:
Martin, Jeroen, Aaron, John, Victor, others: what do you think?
For the class definitions themselves, I think it makes sense to use URIs a la namespaces so we could put some documentation at the specified URL.
Just to make this absolutely clear: by "URIs a la namespaces" you mean to use a URL, abbreviated as a namespace? (So "nml:Node" where the namespace nml has been defined previously). It's a little bit confusing because both URNs and URLs are URIs...
For the identifiers for individual instances, I think the URNs make more sense since it doesn't imply a specific method of access to get information about the element.
Now this I do not agree with, because it would mean that the OGF starts administrating its urn:ogf namespace, and handing out specific subsets to domains, with all associated registration and possible squatting problems. Domains already have a domain name, so why not use that? Jeroen.