I believe this topic should cover both LSID namespaces and authority names.  These are very related topics and the best practices for one greatly influences the best practices for the other, ie if you decide that it is best that authority names use sub-domains to a specific level, eg names.indexfungorum.org (not the best example I know but it illustrates the point), then less namespacing is required for the "namespace" part of the LSID.  (All this assumes opacity - I see it as just "reccommendations" on how to divide your namespacing over the authority name and namespace parts of the LSID).

 

Kevin

>>> ricardo@TDWG.ORG 25/02/2006 6:11 a.m. >>>

Donald Hobern wrote:

> *_9. LSID Resolver Namespaces_**
> (http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=LSIDResolverNamespaces) *
>
>
>
> This is a starting-point for discussion of best practices in using DNS
> entries for LSID resolution services.
>
    Donald, I believe that the definition of this task and its name do
not match. I think it is a terminology problem. The part of the LSID
that is related to DNS is the *authority identification*. The
*namespace* isn't related to DNS. here's the LSID syntax to illustrate:
urn:lsid:authority_identification:namespace:identifier:revision.

    So, this group will discuss authority ids or namespaces (or both)?
Which should we fix, the page name or the description?

    I think I have already mixed this up in a previous post to Kevin
Richards. Sorry about that.

    Regards,

Ricardo