> I would like us to consider that SRW identifiers (schemas and indexes) use
> 'info' rather than 'http'. Before I pursue this further (because there are
> some syntax and administrative questions) does anyone object to this
> approach?

I don't think that we can -require- the use of info URIs but I see no
reason to /not/ use them, especially if NISO is going to maintain a
registry of them.  Unfortunately the referenced URL for the registry
information doesn't resolve, so I can't see if, for example, I could
register info:srw-contextSets/srw.o-r-g.org:ccg:1.0 without going through
the owner of the srw-contextSets namespace.

(At which point, if Ray has to coordinate the registrations, then why
bother?)

Eg:

-----
Namespaces declared under the "info" URI scheme are regulated by
an "info" Registry mechanism.  The "info" Registry allows a public
namespace that is not part of the URI allocation to be declared in
a registration process by the organization that manages it (the
Namespace Authority).
-----

Is Herbert (or other contributer) on the list, or available for discussion?

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.                WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I