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

Re: specific use of URNs?

From: Michael Mealling <michaelm@neonym.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:20:25 -0400
To: mnot@mnot.net, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010613122025.E6005@bailey.dscga.com>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:04:04PM -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
> Jeff et al,
> I think that comment may have been misattributed? I don't remember
> saying anything about squid... Someone told me it may have been
> Michael Mealling?
Yep. Looking back at the minutes it was in response to a comment by
a few people that 'No one is using URNs because they dont' work'
and my response was that they do work and that people are using them 
in lots of places (I think there's a URN in nearly every piece of
Outlook 2000 mail). UDDI is using them. EbXML is using them. The NewsML
standard uses the NewsML URN for naming all news articles.
My statement about 'product in mid May' was about the PIN namespace that
we registered. Needless to say we've slipped a little. I can't
get into specifics but we hope to announce something soon.

With respect to your questions below the reasons we're using URNs instead
of Yet Another URI Scheme are mainly:

1) We want to be part of a framework instead of trying to get
people to implement yet another one off technology

2) The identifiers are permanent for all time and eternity. Why
create yet another identifier when one already exists and has the
mechanisms/policies/procedures we need?
If you're curious about the process of namespace registrations and
who has what you can check out http://www.uri.net/urn-nid-status.html
which has the current status of all official and rumored namespaces.
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:10:38AM -0700, Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com wrote:
> > mnot@mnot.net said in the minutes of the FURI BOF [1]: 
> > > Mark Nottingham:  At the time URNs were looked at in squid,
> > > registration had not been approved. There are documents that need to be
> > > read before saying URNs don't work. They work for me, I'm releasing a
> > > product in mid May.
> >
> > Mark -- w.r.t. the above quote -- can you (now) describe how "the product"
> > uses URNs? Is it using ad-hoc, informal, or formal URN Namespace 
> > Identifier(s)? How is it making use of and leveraging URNs? What is it about
> > the resources/artifacts being identified via the URNs that makes URNs more
> > applicable than say using a URL-style URI (i.e. an existing URI "scheme"),
> > inventing a new URI scheme (having different semantics than URNs')?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > JeffH
> >
> > [1] Future of Uniform Resource Identifiers BOF (furi) 
> > [50th IETF, Minneapolis MN, Mar-2001]
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01mar/ietf50-39.htm#TopOfPage  
> >

Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
michael@neonym.net      |                              | http://www.neonym.net
                        |                              | go:Michael Mealling
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 12:24:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC