- From: Martin J. Dürst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:28:53 +0100 (MET)
- To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>
- cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, urn-ietf@bunyip.com, timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu, uri@bunyip.com, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Well, there are 2 separate questions on the table:
>
> 1. Does "URN:" appear in this registry as one UR{I|L} scheme?
>
> 2. Do URN namespaces (i.e., that part that appears after the URN:
> e.g., urn:ietf:<blah>) get registered in that registry. You
> suggest not; Larry later suggested he thought they ought.
> #2 is a definite "no"; URN namespaces are _not_ just like URL schemes. THey
> have implications of ownership, maintaingin registries and validation
> services, and a whole set of requirements centred on uniqueness, etc. I'm
> sorry to be so vague here -- this is exactly the part that the URN WG
> is trying to nail down now (and if I could be less vague, I'd be halfway
> to having the I-D written :-)
I guess what will happen is that URN namespaces will be registered in
a separate registry, but in a registry that will be kept in close
coordination with the URL scheme registry. Should IANA for some
reason not qualify as the top URN registry maintainer (they maintain
a lot of other stuff, so I don't know why they wouldn't, but anyway),
it would definitely be a good idea to have them keep a "shadow
registration" reflecting the registered URNs for further reference.
Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 27 October 1997 15:50:11 UTC