15926.org

The namespace method we got from ISO 15926-4 (and -6) and put in ISO 15926-8 carries part information.

Example (for dm:): This thread is about discussing the cons and pros of this type of namespace.

Given some facts (but we can discuss in this thread to add more):

• A namespace does not need to be resolvable (produce a page when a browser points at it). We have technical solutions for relating a namespace to an endpoint address.
• Metadata like part information can be expressed semantically, e.g. with the ClassOfClass relationship.

Without part information the example would look like this:

The important point here is to preserve compatibility for legacy data. I don't think the length is really that important, but I'll suggest that whatever decision is taken - it affects only new namespaces for new kinds of data.

Adding all that extra information will also add confusion and a lot of bookkeeping.
Besides, long URIs add tremendously to disk space and bandwidth requirements.

Vote Option: No
Justification: I think that short namespaces just with the main information are enough, and we can garantee the
compatibility with the existing namespaces by software.