[URN] Potential inconsistency between URL and URN syntaxes...

Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:59:50 -0600 (CST)


From: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:59:50 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199612181559.JAA04091@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@ds.internic.net>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Subject: [URN] Potential inconsistency between URL and URN syntaxes...
In-Reply-To: <32B80993.5785@ds.internic.net>

Ryan Moats writes:
 > However, in the latest draft URN syntax spec (circulating on the urn
 > mailing list), the syntax for a URN is
 > 
 > >    "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS>
 > 
 > I don't beleive that the URN specification "can be used in any data
 > field that might otherwise hold a URL" as it currently stands (If
 > somebody thinks otherwise, please let me know).

I think otherwise.  I don't see anything wrong with this syntax -
consider that the scheme name for this whole class of URNs is called
"urn", and thus "urn:" preceeds the rest of the identifier.  

You were not specific about what the nature of the conflict is.

If "urn:" were optional (which is a subject still open for debate, I
presume), we may have a conflict.  The general URI syntax allows the
"<scheme name>:" prefix to be optional, and more of the prefix can be
left out, but then we might have a relative URI, which has different
semantics.  With no "urn:", the <NID> would actually function as the
scheme name since it indicates how to interpret the <NSS>.  But this
is true even with a required "urn:" prefix since we want URNs to be
independent of the resolution mechanism.

I'm not clear whether you believe URNs *should* be used in any data
field that might otherwise hold a URL, independent of whether they
in fact can.  I believe they should.

--
Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/