[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Network Working Group L. Masinter
Internet-Draft Adobe
Intended status: Informational January 10, 2011
Expires: July 14, 2011
The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes, based on dated URIs
draft-masinter-dated-uri-08
Abstract
This document defines two URI schemes. The first, 'duri' (standing
for "dated URI"), identifies a resource as of a particular time.
This allows explicit reference to the "time of retrieval", similar to
the way in which bibliographic references containing URIs are often
written.
The second scheme, 'tdb' ( standing for "Thing Described By"),
provides a way of minting URIs for something by the means of
identifying a description as of a particular time.
Note
This document is not a product of any working group. Many of the
ideas here have been discussed since 2001. Versions of this document
have been discussed on the mailing list <uri@w3.org>. Previous
versions have couched 'tdb' and 'tdb' as URN namespaces, used
different syntax for timestamps, and handled URIs with fragment
identifiers differently.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Overview and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Persistent identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. URIs for anything . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. 'duri' Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. 'tdb' Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Timestamp Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Use as a Locator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Embedded URI schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Useful timestamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Free assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.5. Ambiguous Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.6. Why Names with Semantics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.7. Avoiding MetaData . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.8. Avoiding 'duri' and 'tdb' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.9. Persistent Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.10. 'tdb' and levels of indirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. URI Specification Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. 'duri' Scheme Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. 'tdb' Scheme Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
1. Overview and Requirements
This document is not a product of any working group. Many of the
ideas here have been discussed since 2001. The practical application
of the URI schemes defined here is uncertain, but enough interest has
been expressed in having a stable reference for these concepts that
it seems worthwhile to publish these.
Versions of this document have been discussed on the mailing list
<uri@w3.org> and <www-tag@w3.org>. Previous versions have couched
'tdb' and 'tdb' as URN namespaces, used different syntax for
timestamps, and handled URIs with fragment identifiers differently.
The URI schemes defined here address several related problems:
1.1. Persistent identifiers
[RFC1737] defined several requirements for Uniform Resource Names.
In particular, it requires "persistence":
Persistence: It is intended that the lifetime of a URN be
permanent. That is, the URN will be globally unique forever, and
may well be used as a reference to a resource well beyond the
lifetime of the resource it identifies or of any naming authority
involved in the assignment of its name.
Many people have wondered how to create globally unique and
persistent identifiers. There are a number of URI schemes and URN
namespaces already registered. However, guarantees of both
uniqueness and persistence are difficult.
In some cases, the guarantee of persistence comes through a promise
of good management practice, such as is encouraged in "Cool URIs
don't change" [COOL].
A primary design goal for URIs is that they are intended to mean the
same thing, no matter in what context they appear: that is the
"Uniform" of "Uniform Resource Identifier". However, even when URIs
have "Uniform" meaning independent of the context of use, they don't
usually guarantee stability over time. Despite best efforts and
intentions, the mechanisms of resolution are subject to change in
unpredictable ways: domain names can disappear or be reassigned, name
resolving organizations can change in structure or responsibility,
can disappear, merge, or change in other unpredictable ways.
The interpretation of most URNs depend significantly on the reliable
behavior of name assignment and resolution authorities. The
authorities are usually individuals or organizations trusted
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
initially first to insure the uniqueness of assignment (so that the
same name is not latter assigned for a different resource), and
secondly to reliably maintain the link between the name and the
named.
However, assignment and resolution authorities (whether individuals
or organizations) have a lifetime. The functioning of identifiers as
unique holders of meaning depends on having a reliable infrastructure
for the authority to maintain records, and for anyone to contact the
authority or the authority's records to determine the thing
identified.
1.2. URIs for anything
The description of URIs [RFC3986] describes a range for 'Resource'
that is quite broad:
This specification does not limit the scope of what might be a
resource; rather, the term "resource" is used in a general sense
for whatever might be identified by a URI. Familiar examples
include an electronic document, an image, a source of information
with a consistent purpose (e.g., "today's weather report for Los
Angeles"), a service (e.g., an HTTP-to-SMS gateway), and a
collection of other resources. A resource is not necessarily
accessible via the Internet; e.g., human beings, corporations, and
bound books in a library can also be resources. Likewise,
abstract concepts can be resources, such as the operators and
operands of a mathematical equation, the types of a relationship
(e.g., "parent" or "employee"), or numeric values (e.g., zero,
one, and infinity).
However, no means is given for constructing URIs with such a range.
How, then, might one construct a URI that identifies a human being, a
corporation, or the value 'zero'?
One might wish to use a URI such as 'mailto' URI to identify a
person, or use a 'http' URI to identify an abstract concept, with the
indirection determined by context. Doing so, however, leaves the
open the question of how one might identify, within the same context,
both the system mailbox and the person to which it is assigned; both
the resource reached via the HTTP protocol as determined by the
'http' URI and also the concept that resource describes.
The 'tdb' URI scheme allows one to mint a URIs for things that are
distinguished from the media content that describes them. The 'tdb'
URI scheme attempts to provide a mechanism which is, at the same
time:
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
permanent: The meaning of the URI doens't change over time.
objective: What's meant by the URI, or how it's to be interpreted,
is explicit in the URI.
useful for non-networked things: Allows identification of resources
outside the network: people, organizations, places, things, even
abstract concepts.
no long-term administration requirement: The mechanism does not
depend on administrative processes of authorities for reliable
interpretation over time.
2. Syntax
A 'duri' URI takes the form:
duri:<timestamp>:<embeddedURI>
and A 'tdb' URI takes a similar form:
tdb:<timestamp>:<embeddedURI>
<embeddedURI> is an absoluteURI (as defined in [RFC3986]).
Note that the <embeddedURI> in duri and tdb URIs does not allow
embedded fragment identifiers.
A <timestamp> in these URI schemes consists of a restricted subset of
date times, as per [RFC3339].
timestamp = date [ "T" time "Z" ]
date =date-fullyear [ "-" date-month [ "-" date-mday ]]
time = time-hour [ ":" time-minute
[ ":" time-second [ time-secfrac ]]]
where non-terminals "date-fullyear", "date-month", "date-mday",
"time-hour", "time-minute", "time-second", "time-secfrac" are taken
from [RFC3339]. The goal is to allow relatively short expressions
with no ambiguity, but also allow arbitrary precision. While shorter
forms are available (e.g., year-only timestamps), it is possible to
use forms that are exactly compatible with [RFC3339] "date-time" non-
terminal.
3. Semantics
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
3.1. 'duri' Semantics
The meaning of a 'duri' URI is "the resource that was identified by
the <embeddedURI> at the the time given".
For example, "duri:2001:http://www.ietf.org" is a persistent
identifier to the resource identified by "http://www.ietf.org" as of
(the end of) 2001.
3.2. 'tdb' Semantics
The 'tdb' URI scheme is intended to be useful for describing
entities, concepts, abstractions, and other things which may not
themselves be network accessible resources, but are (or at least have
been at some point) described by network accessible resources.
Thus, a 'tdb' URI is most useful when the <embeddedURI> identifies a
'document' of some sort (something a person could read, peruse,
understand), and where the document thus identified describes some
thing or concept. The 'tdb' URI itself then identifies the subject
of that document. This is similar to the common practice of giving a
reference for a concept by including a pointer to a document phrase
that defines the concept.
For example, one might use
"tdb:2009:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF" as a persistent
identifier for the Internet Engineering Task Force (at least as
described by the Wikipedia article as of 2009).
The 'tdb' URI scheme can be thought of as giving a way to invoke a
level of semantic indirection to URI resolution.
Expressed in RDF, one might consider
<duri:T:U;> foaf:primaryTopic <tdb:T:U>
where '-- foaf:primaryTopic --' is read '-- has, as its primary
topic, --' ([FOAF] term "primaryTopic").
3.3. Timestamp Semantics
It is conventional in references and citations in printed works to
include the date of publication; this practice provides important
context. [MANSTYLE].
One can use 'tdb' without a date; doing so does leave the possibility
that a reference that is unambiguous at one time might become
ambiguous at some other time. There are two ways that the date is
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
useful for 'tdb' URIs: it fixes the time of access of the resource
(and thus time variations of the description), and it fixes the time
of interpretation, for descriptions whose meaning might vary. Thus,
timestamps are useful in 'tdb' even when the resource identification
does not vary (as with 'data' URIs).
While normally, in a literary work in natural language which makes a
reference to another work, both the reference itself and the work
referenced are dated, e.g., a footnote in an article written in 1967
might talk about a "private communication" which itself had a date.
The difference between a URI and a conventional literary reference is
the desire to be able to extract the URI from its context and still
retain its meaning.
The meaning of a timestamp is the interval specified by the
granularity of the time range indicated, in the UTC time zone, as
described in [RFC3339]. If necessary, timestamps can include times
and even fractional times, so that a generator of 'duri' or 'tdb'
URIs can be arbitrarily precise.
If there is any ambiguity of the resource within the range of time
indicated (for example, if the timestamp consists only of a year, and
the resource changes over the course of the year), then the last
available resource state within the the range indicated should be
used.
Timestamps are allowed to be specified with as much precision as
needed. This keeps most 'duri' and 'tdb' URIs relatively short.
4. Use as a Locator
A 'duri' URI is not directly useful as a resource locator, since many
resources vary their content over time.
A 'tdb' URI is not a resource locator in a practical sense, since it
explicitly requires interpretation of the description. However, it
allows one to know that a resource was described at some point in
time; whether the description is still available, or whether that
description is still meaningful, is not guaranteed.
5. Hierarchy
For 'tdb', the "thing described by" a resource may bear little
relationship to the "thing described by" a relative pointer, so the
'tdb' URI scheme seems to have no use cases for using "/" as a
hierarchical delimiter.
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
However, 'duri' URIs can often be used with relative URI references
with some amount of reliability.
6. Additional Considerations
6.1. Embedded URI schemes
The 'tdb' scheme is primarily useful when the <embeddedURI>
identifies an "information resources".
For example, a 'http' URI might refer to a web page or the subject of
a web as it was described at the given time. This can be a way of
referring to a web site at some time in the past, or an organization
that has changed, merged, split, or disappeared.
A 'file' URI with a known-to-be unique host name might also be used
within a 'tdb' URI, for example,
tdb:2001-08-14T14:23:27Z:file://this.example.com/c|/temp/test.txt
This use is primarily focused on providing a unique way of
identifying something, even if the referent is not widely known.
(Using 'file' URIs in this way without a fully qualified domain name
as the authority would not be appropriate, because the interpretation
is not uniform even at any particular instant.)
One might consider using 'tdb' with a 'data' URI to designate
concepts that can be described uniquely with brief inline text. For
example,
tdb:2001:data:,The%20US%20president
names the concept described by the (text/plain) string "The US
president" at the end of 2001. Of course, this practice is only
useful if the referent of the data is (or was at the time) unique.
Since a 'data' URI does not contain a way to designate content-
language, the string in question should be unambiguous as to its
language. In the case of 'data' URIs, there is no assigning
authority at all; the interpretation of the 'tdb' depend on the
interpreting community.
Using 'duri' with an embedded 'urn' might not seem to be too useful,
but it might be useful where the assignment of names in a URN
namespace are not, in practice, permanent, and one wants to refer to
the assignment as of a given date. In this case, it is possible to
use a "urn" within a 'duri', e.g.,
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
duri:2000:urn:ietf:std:50
might be used to refer to "the document that the IETF considered to
be STD 50, at the end of 2000".
For use with 'tdb', many URIs identify resources which do not clearly
describe anything at all. Even when there is a description of
something, care should be given; for example, the home page for an
organization might not be as good a resource to use to describe an
organization as the organization's "about" page or an external
authority's description of the organization. It is up to the minter
of a 'tdb' URI to choose wisely.
6.2. Useful timestamps
Timestamps in the future are suspect, because the future content of a
description resource cannot usually be reliably predicted.
Timestamps which preceed the availability of the description resource
should not be used either. For example, using a http URI with a
timestamp before the description resource has been created is also
not recommended.
However, although these practices are not recommended, there is no
assurance that they haven't been used; by itself, a 'tdb' URI by
itself does not constitute an assertion that the description resource
was available or assigned at the date specified.
Note that the use of the "last available state" allows for the
conventional bibliographic convention that a work published in 2009
can use "2009" as the date string, to refer to the work in the year
of publication.
6.3. Free assignment
Because of the many possible schemes that can be used in the embedded
URI, there should be no difficulty in almost any computational
process being able to assign 'duri' or 'tdb' URIs at will. Of
course, it is necessary for there to be some resource which is
available at some point in time, and to have a clock which is
accurate to the granularity of the frequency of assignment.
6.4. Resolution
There are no direct resolution servers or processes for 'duri' or
'tdb' URIs. However, a 'duri' URI might be "resolvable" in the sense
that a resource that was accessed at a point in time might have the
result of that access cached or archived in an Internet archive
service. See, for example, the "Internet Archive" project [archive].
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
And a 'tdb' URI is "resolvable" to the extent that the description
resource can be accessed and interpreted.
Clients without access to an Internet archive service might take the
embedded URI of a 'duri' and attempt resolution of that identifier.
This will give an approximation whose reliability depends on the what
has happened in the time since the date indicated.
6.5. Ambiguous Resources
There are many URIs which are, unfortunately, not particularly
"uniform", in the sense that two clients can observe completely
different content for the same resource, at exactly the same time.
These resources are not so useful with 'tdb' URIs, since time alone
is not adequate to identify precisely because the results of access
depends on other details of the observation (e.g., IP address,
cookies, HTTP request headers, which physical server responded,
etc.). That is, for 'tdb' URIs, there are two possible sources of
instability, the URI to resource mapping and the resource to
representation relationship, since the "description" is carried in a
representation.
Non uniform-resources are also problematic with 'duri' URIs, because
archival services are unlikely to preserve all of the variants and
conditions of variability.
6.6. Why Names with Semantics?
The 'tdb' URI scheme differs from other URI or URN methods for
identifying abstractions because the designation of what is actually
identified by the 'tdb' doesn't depend on knowing the intention of
the assigner of the identifier. Unlike the 'tag' [RFC4151], 'info'
[RFC4452], 'cid' or 'mid' [RFC2392] schemes, for example, the
identification does not depend on any authority or process not
reusing the same identifier at some later point for a different
concept, or maintaining any records or meaning. In these other
schemes, the assigning authority only insures uniqueness at the time
of minting, with some other agent or process or context providing the
authority to interpret the meaning of the identifier in the future.
In this sense, 'duri' and 'tdb' are different, in that it is the
agreement between the describer (the agent creating the URI) and the
receiver of the URI (the agent interpreting the URI) to agree upon
the semantics without any reference to any third party.
6.7. Avoiding MetaData
One might consider the timestamp in a 'duri' or 'tdb' URI to be just
one piece of additional metadata about the URI, and consider adding
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
other pieces of metadata as annotation.
However, the use of the timestamp is intended primarily as a
mechanism of accomplishing uniqueness over time. No other bit of
metadata or description readily fills that purpose. Further, the
date is not descriptive (an assertion about the URI) but merely
refining.
6.8. Avoiding 'duri' and 'tdb'
Many applications of URIs already provide a context of timestamp.
For example, one could imagine a hypertext system where the URIs
contained within a document were intended to refer to the resources
as of the date of the enclosing document. This would be a reasonable
interpretation of URIs within an Internet archive system, for
example.
Some applications of URIs already implicitly use the level of
interpretive indirection that is explicit with 'tdb', For example,
within an ontology language definition, the URIs used for abstract
concepts, individuals and so forth are generally considered the
"thing described by" the URI.
In addition, the 'application/rdf+xml' Media Type [RFC3870] uses the
fragment identifier resolution as an explicit way of identifying
things that are described by an RDF document.
6.9. Persistent Domains
A design issue writeup [PDOMAINS] also explored the problem space
with a focus on the lack of persistence of DNS domain name
assignments as one of the primary contributions to instability of
"http:" URIs. While the solution explored there (persistent year-
dated domain names) might resolve some of the issues, it leaves open
the possibility that "http:" itself might not be the primary access
method for networked resources in one-hundred years, or the
difficulty of assuring any of the organizational guarantees that
might be expected of such an assignment -- that the webmasters of all
organizations with persistent domains will always maintain URIs which
were promised to be stable.
6.10. 'tdb' and levels of indirection
The 'tdb' scheme introduces a level of semantic indirection. The
puzzles and confusions about use and mention, name and reference, and
levels of indirection have been puzzling and amusing for quite a
while.
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
"It's long," said the Knight, "but it's very, very beautiful.
Everybody that hears me sing it--either it brings tears into their
eyes, or else--"
"Or else what?" said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden
pause.
"Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called
'Haddock's Eyes.'"
"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to
feel interested.
"No, you don't understand," the knight said, looking a little
vexed. "That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The
Aged Aged Man.'"
"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called'?"
Alice corrected herself.
"No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called
'Ways and Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!"
"Well, what is the song, then?" said Alice, who was by this time
completely bewildered.
"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is
'A-sitting On A Gate': and the tune's my own invention." [LOOK]
7. URI Specification Templates
7.1. 'duri' Scheme Template
URI scheme name: duri
Status: permanent
URI scheme syntax: The syntax is described in detail in Section 2 of
this document. Briefly, the syntax is
duri:<timestamp>:<embeddedURI>
where <timestamp> is year, year-month or date taken from
[RFC3339], and <embeddedURI> is an <absoluteURI> from [RFC3986].
URI scheme semantics: A URI as of a particular time. Semantics are
described in detail in this document.
Encoding considerations: 'duri' URIs consist of a prefix followed by
another URI, and should have the same encoding considerations as
others.
Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name: Limited: this
scheme was originally developed as a "thought experiment",
although there is some discussion of using it with Memento
[MEMENTO].
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
Interoperability considerations: The actual interoperability with
Internet archiving services needs further exploration.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of this document.
Contact: Larry Masinter tdb:2010:http://larry.masinter.net
Author/Change controller: Contact, as above.
References: See References of this document.
7.2. 'tdb' Scheme Template
URI scheme name: tdb
Status: permanent
URI scheme syntax: The syntax is described in detail in Section 2 of
this document. Briefly, the syntax is
tdb:<timestamp>:<embeddedURI>
where <timestamp> is year, year-month or date taken from
[RFC3339], and <embeddedURI> is an <absoluteURI> from [RFC3986].
URI scheme semantics: Semantic indirection at indicated date.
Semantics are described in detail in this document.
Encoding considerations: 'tdb' URIs consist of a prefix followed by
another URI, and should have the same encoding considerations as
others.
Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name: Limited: This
scheme was originally designed as a "thought experiment", as a way
resolve some of the use/mention ambiguities in semantic web
applications that wish to "denote" concepts and other ideas and
not just access resources over the Internet.
Interoperability considerations: Existing semantic web applications
may have other means of fixing meaning at a particular time or
semantic indirection, and do not fix description by time.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of this document.
Contact: Larry Masinter tdb:2010:http://larry.masinter.net
Author/Change controller: as above
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
References: See References of this document.
8. IANA considerations
This document includes two URI scheme registrations (Section 7 that
should be entered into the IANA registry of URI schemes as a
permanent registration (once approved).
9. Security Considerations
'tdb' identifiers are not any more reliable because they have dates.
URIs don't contain enough information to supply the authority for
deciding what was or wasn't at a given URI at a given date.
10. Acknowledgements
There have been many discussions over several years on the
relationship of URLs, URNs, URIs, resources and resource identifiers,
with many contributions. Particular thanks to those who have
severely critiqued various versions of this document in the past,
including Jonathan Rees, Nathan, Alan Ruttenberg, Alfred Hines,
Herbert Van de Sompel, Al Gilman, Aaron Swartz, Brian McBride, Stuart
Williams, Michael Mealling, Ray Denenberg and Pat Hayes.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date an Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
January 2005.
11.2. Informative References
[COOL] Berners-Lee, T., "Cool URIs don't change", 1998,
<http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html>.
[FOAF] Brickley, D., "FOAF Vocabulary Specification 0.98",
August 2010,
<http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_primaryTopic>.
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
[LOOK] Carroll, L., "Through the Looking Glass", 1872, <http://
www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/
through-the-looking-glass/chapter-08.html>.
[MANSTYLE]
The University of Chicago, "The Chicago Manual Of Style
Online: Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide", 2010, <http:/
/www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html>.
[MEMENTO] Memento Development Group, "Memento: Adding Time to the
Web", 2010, <http://mementoweb.org/>.
[PDOMAINS]
Berners-Lee, T., "Persistent Domains - Strawman ideas on
Web Architecture", October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/PersistentDomains>.
[RFC1737] Sollins, K., "Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource
Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.
[RFC2392] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.
[RFC3870] Swartz, A., "application/rdf+xml Media Type Registration",
RFC 3870, September 2004.
[RFC4151] Kindberg, T. and S. Hawke, "The 'tag' URI Scheme",
RFC 4151, October 2005.
[RFC4452] Van de Sompel, H., Hammond, T., Neylon, E., and S. Weibel,
"The "info" URI Scheme for Information Assets with
Identifiers in Public Namespaces", RFC 4452, April 2006.
[archive] Kahle, B., "Preserving the Internet", Scientific
American , March 1997,
<http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397kahle.html>.
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft The 'tdb' and 'duri' URI schemes January 2011
Author's Address
Larry Masinter
Adobe
345 Park Ave
San Jose, CA 95110
US
Phone: +1 408 536 3024
Email: LMM@acm.org
URI: http://larry.masinter.net
Masinter Expires July 14, 2011 [Page 16]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.128, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/