Is it just me, or is anyone else there worried about the day-to-day
operational problems of these type (class?) names?
This is very like the situation with domain names. In Australia
we chose to have an extra level below .au, similar to the
international top level. So adelaide.edu.au is clearly the
University of Adelaide. In Canada they chose not to do that
so they have to add something to a name to pin it down, e.g.
utoronto.ca for the University of Totonto. Breaking up the
name space with a generic label leads to some questions about
where does a particular organization belong: .gov, .edu, .org?
An example is the Australia Research network which is aarnet.edu.au.
The key point is that where an organization can fit in various
categories then it doesn't matter where it goes. It is only
a name. It is nice if people can find a name they're happy with,
but it is wrong to think of the name as having "meaning".
The same is true with content-type/subtypes. It is only the
type/subtype combination that has meaning. However the
classification scheme that has been chosen seems to be
helpful in many cases and not harmful where the best
classification is less clear.
The type is just a component of the type/subtype name and
has no inherent semantics, and so can not cause operational
problems.
Bob Smart