W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 1997

Re: [URN] draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:00:42 -0600
Message-Id: <333C317A.1BD455E5@w3.org>
To: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-url@imc.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Karen R. Sollins wrote:
>  Hence there is a certain burden of
> proof on the proposer of an identification (URN) namespace that does
> not hold true for a location (URL) namespace.

Hmm... OK, if there are some process rules that we believe
will result in more persistent, reliable names, then it's
worth writing them down.

I think it's a contractual issue, and not worth specifying in
a technical sense. But that's just my intuition, and in the
case of process, the relevant question is whether the participants
of the IETF are willing to standardize some contractual
properites. It seems that you/they/we are, so away we go...

But it seems perfectly feasible, to me, for the connection
between a URI and this URN process contract to be
outside the identifier itself. That is, rather than


which syntactically binds the name to the URN process contract,
it seems sufficient to write


and have the ISBN scheme specification say "this scheme
conforms to the URN process contract."

If not, please somebody explain why not, and write it
up in a spec, and let's review it.

Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead
<connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971
PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
Received on Friday, 28 March 1997 16:00:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:34 UTC