RE: URI equivalence, URI's for "standard" identifiers

Dan Connolly is almost correct when he says:


> There's no reason to indirect via a urn: prefix.
> 	isbn:nnnn
> is perfectly valid URI syntax[1], provides all the necessary
> information,
> and has been in use since Nov 1991. I hope the folks that acutally
> own and operate the ISBN social process endorse this practice soon
> and register isbn: with IANA.
> 
[Ron Daniel]  There is no particular technical reason to
prefer urn:isbn over isbn:. However, the former is the
syntax the IETF's working group decided upon, based strongly
on the requests of the major browser vendor at the time.
Personally, I agree with Dan that the urn: prefix is not
strictly necessary. But that prefix is actually a religious
issue (that is, it is a matter of taste rather than clear
technical merit) and is a known rathole. So professionally I
try to stick to the standard and not reopen old discussions.

Also, Dan cites a message from 1991 where Edward Vielmetti
says he will be using URIs of the form:

> isbn:0-13-484080-1
[Ron Daniel]  People should be aware of the fact that the
hyphens in an ISBN are optional, and there only for making
them easier for humans to transcribe. Typically they are
removed for storage in databases. So people should expect
to have to deal with ISBNs that do and do not contain hyphens.

Finally, to get back to my point in earlier email in this thread,
just because an individual, or even a community of individuals,
thinks its a good idea to use isbn:1-234-56789-0 as a URI does
not make it a good idea. I think it will be a great idea once
the formal maintenance agencies for ISBNs decide to do so. Until
then I think we should not pre-empt their choices. 

Regards,
Ron

Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 10:57:54 UTC