W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal

From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:20:03 -0400
Message-ID: <392ECE63.9D25A660@valinet.com>
To: michaelm@netsol.com
CC: abrahams@acm.org, "'xml-uri@w3.org'" <xml-uri@w3.org>
Michael Mealling wrote:

> On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:35:27PM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
> > "Arnold, Curt" wrote:
> > > Isn't that already achievable by using a URI with a protocol of "uuid:"
> > > for the namespace and using the UUID generation algorithms.  That could
> > > be a solution for relative URI's that are intended to indicate a document
> > > specific namespace.
> >
> > Where are the UUID generation algorithms described?  I couldn't locate a
> > description of UUIDs using the IETF search facility.  And as I asked
> > John Cowen about OIDs, can anyone get as many UUIDs as
> > they wish?  Can my grandmother get a bushel of them?
>
> Part of hte problem with UUIDs is who's definition you go with as several
> entities have things called UUIDs and/or GUIDs. Microsoft has one
> definition. Guid.org has another. I think ISO has yet another. Some
> use an algorithm that includes your MAC address which raises some
> hairy privacy concerns.
>
> The nice thing about most GUIDs is that they're really just a combination
> of some location, a timestamp, and some hash which make it so that
> you can create an insane amount of them algorithmicly...

Given the multiple definitions, is there any possibility of overlap, i.e., two
definitions might yield the same GUID?  Can you point me at the Microsoft
definition?

And what do you think of the idea that led to this query: using UUID's as the only
non-deprecated form of namespace name?

Paul Abrahams
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 15:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC