W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2001

Proposal: 'tag' URIs

From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:10:24 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.1.20010426190042.036414a0@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
To: uri@w3.org
Cc: sandro@w3.org, timothy@hpl.hp.com

The following proposal is for a new class of URIs, 'tags', suitable for 
identifying any physical or virtual entity. Two examples of tags are 
tag:hpl.hp.com/1:tst.12345 and tag:sandro@w3c.org/2-4:my-dog.

Tags are designed to be tractable to humans, unique over space and time, 
easily (cheaply) created, and independent of any _particular_ 
resource-location or identifier-resolution system. For example, they are 
for use as simple identifiers, distinguishing one resource from another; 
and they may be bound to resources (including services and applications) in 
a wide variety of naming contexts, and looked up using a variety of 
resolution protocols.

Some context for this design (and the proposal itself in various formats) 
can be found at www.taguri.org.

The proposal is by myself and Sandro Hawke (mailto:sandro@w3.org). The 
proposal is a draft. It is not an official informational Internet-Draft but 
we intend for it to become one. We welcome discussion and feedback. Since 
we wrote our proposal it was brought to our attention that others have put 
forward ideas that overlap in part. Our goal is to provide a useful 
specification of functionality, not to claim absolute originality.

Cheers,

Tim.

--CUT --






Internet Draft                                                Tim Kindberg
Document: draft-kindberg-tag-uri-00.txt        Hewlett-Packard Corporation
Expires: October 1, 2001                                      Sandro Hawke
                                                  World Wide Web Consortium
                                                                 April 2001


                       The tag: URI scheme (DRAFT)


STATUS OF THIS MEMO

    This  document  is  an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
    all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

    Internet-Drafts are working documents  of  the  Internet  Engineering
    Task  Force  (IETF),  its  areas,  and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may  also  distribute  working  documents  as  Internet-
    Drafts.

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at  any
    time.   It  is  inappropriate  to  use  Internet-Drafts  as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
         http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-
    Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
         http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

    This Internet-draft will expire on October 1, 2001.

    Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All
    Rights Reserved.

    DISCLAIMER. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
    necessarily state or reflect those of the World Wide Web Consortium,
    and may not be  used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
    This proposal  has not undergone technical review within the
    Consortium and must not be construed as a Consortium recommendation.


ABSTRACT

    This document describes the 'tag:' Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
    scheme for identifiers that are unique across space and time.
    Identifiers belonging to this scheme are distinct from most other
    URIs in that they are intended for uses that are independent of any
    particular method for resource location or name resolution. A 'tag:'
    URI may be used purely as an identifier that distinguishes one entity
    from another. It may also be presented to services for resolution
    into a web resource or into one or more further URIs, but no
    particular resolution scheme is implied or preferred by a 'tag:' URI
    itself. Unlike UUIDs or GUIDs such as 'uuid:' and 'urn:oid' URIs,



Kindberg          Informational - Expires October 2001          [Page 1]





Internet-Draft             The tag: URI scheme                April 2001


    which also have some of the above properties, 'tag:' URIs are
    designed to be tractable to humans. Furthermore, they have many of
    the desirable properties that 'http:' URLs have when used as
    identifiers, but none of the drawbacks.


0. TERMINOLOGY
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.


1. INTRODUCTION

    A 'tag:' identifier is a type of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
    [RFC2396] designed to meet the following requirements:

    1) Identifiers are unique across space and time and come from a
       practically inexhaustible supply;
    2) identifiers are convenient for humans to mint (create), read, type
       etc.;
    3) zero registration cost, at least to holders of domain names or
       email addresses; and negligible cost to mint new identifiers;
    4) easy identification of the entity that has minted the identifier,
       should that be desirable;
    5) independence of any particular resource-location or identifier-
       resolution scheme.

    For example, the above requirements may apply in the case of a user
    who wants to place identifiers on their documents:

    A) They want to be sure that the identifier is unique. Global
       uniqueness is valuable because it guarantees that one identifier
       cannot conflict with another, however identifiers become shared.
    B) It is useful for the identifier to be tractable to humans: they
       should be able to mint new identifiers conveniently and to type
       them into forms; the identifiers should be able to contain a hint
       about how to categorise the document.
    C) They do not want to have to communicate with anyone else in order
       to mint identifiers for their documents.
    D) It is natural to use a name associated with the user or their
       organisation within the identifier, since that is the origin of
       the identifier.
    E) As a good net citizen, the user does not want to use an identifier
       that might be assumed by software to imply the existence of a
       corresponding resource in a default binding scheme  so that an
       attempt to retrieve that resource is likely but doomed to failure.
       Of course, this leaves them free to exploit the identifier in
       particular applications and services, where the context is clear.

    Existing identification schemes satisfy some but not all of the
    general requirements 1-5. For example:





Kindberg          Informational - Expires October 2001          [Page 2]





Internet-Draft             The tag: URI scheme                April 2001


    UUIDs [UUID, ISO-11578] are hard for humans to read and the assigning
    organisation is not explicit.

    OIDs [OID, RFC3061] and Digital Object Identifiers [DOI] require
    naming authorities to register themselves, even if they already hold
    a domain name registration.

    URNs [RFC2141] are intended to be resolvable in a default naming
    context.  Software encountering a URN in a document is liable to
    attempt to resolve it, even though the entity that minted the
    identifier has not bound any resource in that context.

    URLs (in particular, 'http:' URLs) are sometimes used as ersatz
    identifiers that satisfy most of our requirements. Many users and
    organisations have already registered a domain name, and the use of
    the domain name to mint identifiers comes at no additional cost. But
    there are drawbacks to URLs-as-identifiers:

    1) Software might try to dereference a URL-as-identifier, even though
       there is no resource at the 'location'.
    2) The new holder of a domain name can't be sure that they are
       minting new names. If Smith registers champignon.net and then
       Jones registers it, how can Jones know, in general, whether Smith
       has already used http://champignon.net/99?
    3) We can't find out who minted a URL-as-identifier, if the domain
       has changed hands. Using the example from (B), no-one can tell who
       minted http://champignon.net/99.

    Adding a fragment "#fragment" on the end of a URL (thus forming a URI
    reference) does not, of itself, remove the undesirable
    characteristics of URLs as identifiers.


2. THE 'TAG:' URI SCHEME

    Examples of tag: URIs (also known as 'tags') are:

       tag:hpl.hp.com/1:tst.1234567890
       tag:exploratorium.edu/1:pi.99
       tag:sandro@w3c.org/1:my-dog
       tag:myIDs.com/1:TimKindberg/doc.101
       tag:champignon.net/1
       tag:champignon.net/1-3-22:99
       tag:champignon.net/2-4:100

    Each tag consists of a 'tag authority' followed, optionally, by a specific
    identifier. The tag authority consists of an 'authority name' -- a fully
    qualified domain name or an email address containing a fully qualified
    domain name -- followed by a date. The tag authority is globally unique
    because domain names and email addresses are assigned to at most one
    entity at a time and that entity can be sure of minting unique
    identifiers.





Kindberg          Informational - Expires October 2001          [Page 3]





Internet-Draft             The tag: URI scheme                April 2001


    The date specifies any particular day on which the authority name was
    assigned to the minting entity. Depending on defaults, dates appear in one
    of three forms: 'year', 'year-month' or 'year-month-day'. Several
    abbreviations are mandated, in the interests of being able to transcribe
    tags into identification technologies of limited capacity (e.g. barcodes),
    while ensuring that tags are single-valued, for easy comparison:

    1) The year, which MUST be at least 2001, is abbreviated by subtracting
       2000, so that 2001 is written '1', 11958 will be '9958', etc.
    2) The month and day default to 1. A day value of 1 MUST be omitted. A
       month value of 1 MUST be omitted unless it is followed by a day value
       other than 1. For example, '1' is the date 2001/1/1, '3-4' is 2003/4/1.
       The date values '2-1' and '2-4-1' are not allowed but '2-1-4' is
       allowed.
    3) Date components MUST NOT contain a leading zero.

    Note that dates, such as '1' and '3-4', each specify a single day. They
    are not to be taken as 'the whole of 2001' and 'the whole of April 2003',
    respectively.

    A tag authority mints specific identifiers that are unique within its
    context, in accordance with any internal scheme that uses only URI
    characters. Some tag authorities (e.g. corporations, mailing lists)
    consist of many people, in which case group decision-making and record-
    keeping procedures are required to achieve uniqueness.

    Entities that were assigned an authority name on a given date MAY mint
    tags rooted at that date-qualified name. An entity MUST NOT mint tags
    under an authority name that was assigned to a different entity on the
    given date, and it MUST NOT mint tags under a future date. We take the
    date of assignment of an authority name to be the first day for which the
    assignment is held at midnight (00:00) UTC.

    An entity that acquires an authority name immediately after a period
    during which the name was unassigned MAY mint tags as if the entity was
    assigned the name during the unassigned period. This practice has
    considerable potential for error and MUST NOT be used unless the entity
    has substantial evidence that the name was unassigned during that period.
    The authors are currently unaware of any mechanism that would count as
    evidence, other than daily polling of the 'whois' registry.

    For example, Hewlett-Packard holds the domain registration for hpl.hp.com
    and may mint any tags rooted at that name with a current or past date when
    it held the registration (2001/1/1 or later). It must not mint tags such
    as tag:champignon.net/1 under domain names not registered to it. It must
    not mint tags dated in the future, such as tag:hpl.hp.com/999. If it
    obtains assignment of extremelyunlikelytobeassigned.org on 2001/5/1, then
    it must not mint tags under extremelyunlikelytobeassigned.org/1 unless it
    has found substantial evidence that that name was continuously unassigned
    between 2001/1/1 and 2001/5/1.







Kindberg          Informational - Expires October 2001          [Page 4]





Internet-Draft             The tag: URI scheme                April 2001


    The general syntax of a 'tag:' URI, in BNF, is:

             tagURI         ::= "tag:" tagAuthority [":" specific]

    Where:
             tagAuthority   ::= authorityName "/" date
             authorityName  ::= DNSname | emailAddress
             DNSname        ::= DNScomp | DNSname "." DNScomp   ; [RFC 1035]
             DNScomp        ::= lowAlphaNum *(lowAlphaNum | "-") lowAlphaNum
             emailAddress   ::= 1*(lowAlphaNum |"-"|"."|"_") "@" DNSname
             lowAlphaNum    ::= dig | "a"|"b"| ... "y"|"z"  ; all lwr case 
alphas
             date           ::= year ["-" (monthNon1 | month "-" day)]
             year           ::= digitNon0 [*dig]
             monthNon1      ::= digit2+ | "10" | "11" | "12"
             month          ::= "1" | monthNon1
             day            ::= digit2+ | ("1"|"2") dig | "30" |"31"
             dig            ::= "0" | digitNon0
             digitNon0      ::= "1" | digit2+
             digit2+        ::= "2"|"3"|"4"|"5"|"6"|"7"|"8"|"9"
             specific       ::= 1*(URIchars)  ; [RFC 2396]

    The component 'tagAuthority' is the name space part of the URI. This MUST
    be expressed in lower case. The domain name in 'authorityName' (whether an
    email address or a simple domain name) MUST be fully qualified.

    Authority names could, in principle, belong to any syntactically distinct
    namespaces whose names are assigned to a unique entity at a time. Those
    include, for example, certain IP addresses, certain MAC addresses, and
    telephone numbers. However, to simplify the tag scheme, we restrict
    authority names to be assigned domain names and email addresses. Future
    standards efforts may allow use of such names following syntax that is
    disjoint from this syntax. To allow for such developments, software that
    processes tags MUST NOT reject tags on the grounds that they are outside
    the syntax defined above.

    The component 'specific' is the name-space-specific part of the URI: it is
    any string of valid URI characters [RFC2396] chosen by the minter of the
    URI. Specific identifiers MUST be single-valued: that is, all
    syntactically distinct 'specific' strings must correspond to distinct
    identifiers. It is RECOMMENDED that specific identifiers should be human-
    friendly.


3. MEETING REQUIREMENTS 1-5

    Requirement 2 of Section 1 -- convenience for humans -- is met by the URL-
    like syntax for tag authorities. However, the onus is on individual naming
    authorities to use human-friendly specific identifiers.

    Requirement 3 -- negligible costs -- follows from use of domain names and
    email addresses. Those identifiers are already held by many individuals
    and organisations and are cheap to obtain. Specific identifiers may be
    minted without communication with any other entity.




Kindberg          Informational - Expires October 2001          [Page 5]





Internet-Draft             The tag: URI scheme                April 2001


    Requirement 4 -- convenient identification of the minting entity, where
    desirable -- also follows from use of domain names and email addresses. An
    entity may use its authority name in a tag if it wishes to be so
    identified; alternatively, it could lease identifiers privately from
    another entity ('myTags.com').

    Requirement 5 -- independence of resolution schemes -- is asserted by
    definition. However, this state of affairs is subject to actual usage
    conventions.

    Requirement 1 specifies uniqueness over space and time. Tag URIs meet that
    requirement by using uniquely assigned authority names and by handling
    transfers of their assignment, e.g. the transfer of a domain name's
    registration from one entity to another. The date is used to guarantee
    uniqueness of 'tagAuthority' across assignments of the authority name.

    For example, suppose that on April 2, 2001, the champignon.net domain
    registration becomes assigned to a new entity. That entity must qualify
    the domain name with a date on which it is or was assigned to it, to
    ensure that its tag authority is and will remain unique. In particular, it
    must take care not to use defaults in such a way as to specify an earlier
    date. For example, the new assignee of champignon.net may use '1-4-2', '1-
    5' or '2' (assuming it retains the assignment) but not '1' or '1-4'.


4. EQUALITY OF TAGS

    The tag syntax rules in Section 2 uniquely determine tag authority
    identifiers for any particular authority and date. Furthermore, specific
    identifiers are mandated to be single-valued.

    Therefore, two tag URIs are equal if and only if they are identical as
    character strings.


5. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

    Minting a tag, by itself, is an operation internal to the minting entity
    with no external consequences. The consequences of using an improperly
    minted tag (due to malice or error) in a binding protocol or other
    protocol depend on the protocol, and must be considered in the design of
    any protocol that uses tags.


6. FURTHER INFORMATION

    Further information about the tag URI scheme -- motivation, genesis and
    discussion -- can be obtained from http://www.taguri.org.


REFERENCES






Kindberg          Informational - Expires October 2001          [Page 6]





Internet-Draft             The tag: URI scheme                April 2001


    [DOI]       Norman Paskin (1997). Information Identifiers. Learned
                Publishing, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 135-156, April. See also
                www.doi.org.
    [ISO-11578] ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO/IEC
                11578:1996. "Information technology - Open Systems
                Interconnection - Remote Procedure Call (RPC)"
    [OID]       ITU-T recommendation X.208 (ASN.1). See also RFC 1778.
    [RFC822]    David H. Crocker (1982). Standard for the format of ARPA
                Internet text messages.
    [RFC1035]   P. Mocapetris (1987). Domain Names - implementation and
                specification.
    [RFC2141]   R. Moats (1997). URN syntax.
    [RFC2396]   T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter (1998). Uniform
                Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax.
    [RFC3061]   M. Mealling (2001). A URN Namespace of Object Identifiers.
    [UUID]      Paul Leach, Rich Salz (1997). UUIDs and GUIDs. Internet-Draft
                Draft-leach-uuids-01.


AUTHORS' ADDRESSES

    Tim Kindberg
    Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
    1501 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
    Tel:   +1 650 857-5609
    Email: timothy@hpl.hp.com

    Sandro Hawke
    World Wide Web Consortium
    200 Technology Square
    Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
    Tel:   +1 617 253-7288
    Email: sandro@w3.org



Tim Kindberg

internet & mobile systems lab  hewlett-packard laboratories
1501 page mill road, ms 1u-17
palo alto
ca 94304-1126
usa

www.champignon.net/TimKindberg/
timothy@hpl.hp.com
voice +1 650 857 5609
fax +1 650 857 2358
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2001 22:57:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC