(Sorry if this causes some discomfort.) The result of our earlier
discussion of the info uri was that whoever assigns a uri identifier for an
srw object (context set, schema, profile, etc.) gets to choose an
appropriate uri scheme. If you want to use "http", and you're the
authority, it's your prerogative.
I'm going to use 'info' for those I assign. I've applied for an srw info
namespace. Following is the description I submitted:
There are a number of SRW object types that require unambiguous identifiers
in order for the protocol to function properly. These include CQL context
sets and record schemas. The syntax would thus be:
info:srw/<srw object type>/<id>
The <id> is opaque as far as this concerns the info syntax, but may itself
be structured later.
which is describe at:
Anyone who wants to assign info:srw ids can do so, or I can assing them all,
but we (or I) have to decide fairly quickly which way to go, because if I
assign sub-authorities (which I would much prefer) then we'll have to
structure the opaque part of the identifier. If it seems that nobody else
is going to want to assign them there may be no reason to structure it and I
can assign flat ids as in the example above.
Please be assured that if nobody (other than myself) has interest in the
assignment of info:srw identifiers then this has no impact on our efforts --
except I do plan to re-assign the existing http identifiers that I control
to info (before 1.1 is finalized).