> schemeregistry is right in the "Subject:" line!
>
> While it's indeed dry and bureaucratic, it's very, if not
> *perfectly* descriptive for registering the existence, and
> basic characteristics any sort of Scheme artifact below
> the levels that are already being handled like Scheme
> standards and SRFIs.

You're right - it is descriptive. Given your arguments, I'm fine with
it. Maybe it's even better than id or ids.