amendments to Identifier framework

[Ray Plante]

Hi Tony,

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Tony Linde wrote:
> > If not, can you suggest 
> > an alternate statement regarding who/what controls the use of 
> > authority IDs?
> 
> I personally don't think we need one, nor do I think it necessary to trace
> names, but if people want to link an authority to an organisation, I can
> live with it. But if I want to register an authority of tonylinde.com, I
> don't see that it should be traceable back to anyone but me, and if I'm the
> named curator of that authority, why do we need more? But it doesn't overly
> bother me as long as it is all optional so people can ignore it if they
> want.

Okay, your Authority resource class captures this (w/ the ManagingOrg).  

> > The main requirement proposed here is having the global 
> > registry associate AuthorityIDs with the registry that 
> > originates them.
> 
> We'll get that by replicating the Registry resource which includes a list of
> ManagedAuthority pointers. Yes?

Yes, if we assume that a registry can only publish (i.e. originate) IDs 
with authorityIDs it manages.  I'm okay with this; however, some have 
suggested this is an unnecessary restriction.  It certainly makes things 
easier.  

> > this interoperation, I'm suggesting one minor change to the 
> > Identifier WD specification of the URI form: the use of # to 
> > set off a component that is to be ignored by registries.  
> 
> Hmm. Sounds okay though, again, I don't think it belongs as part of the
> identifier WD. Let'd keep it simple. Any extension of the use of the
> identifier *outside* of resource identity should be handled by a Note, I
> think.

Agreed.  

cheers,
Ray