prop-notation-interp

Type(s): Issue

Description
- Is it likely that the term "IRI" will replace "URI" in the foreseeable future? Does there need to be well-defined mechanism for adding new possible values for the [notation] property?
Opinion
- I dont see an issue here. We have the notation property and we say the default is URI. fine. There is nothing to stop new notations coming along. At the moment we dont have any form or enumeration of notation types and i dont think we should. - Scope: Graham Moore
- Referring to RFC 2396 is likely to only be relevant for a short while. Already IETF have published a draft on Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) that may well replace this specification in the longer term. The requirement that all other values must begin with ?x-? is unsupportable given that IRI might be needed in place of URI by the time SAM is published by ISO. - Scope: Martin Bryan
Resolution
- Adding new notations will require changes to syntax specifications, therefore, this issue is not a problem. Close and let it be.

Discussion
- http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0376.htm#sc34_6-9Dec2002_Corrected-div-d0e154

Object id: 522
Item identifier(s):
[file:/apps/ontopia.net/tomcat/ontopia-5.3.0/topicmaps/tm-standards.xtm#prop-notation-interp]