We should drop the useless urn: prefix
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 16:33 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9821A87AF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqOCDg-xPgAb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11C2A1A8788 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbcmq2 with SMTP id mq2so45134592lbc.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JhhJre8I7h+CzAFOp3nqX6WYMME+ss24GYnHyImbpAI=; b=j12r1g8k0jQt90rL3Q9OKAqKsXIwGtGrnRtrtuOwPVebGzKNwm4aP2nstow2NIQi3v SJseE7b8pjr6bk6gUDFTsyowg3jgijt+P2EwV1E5ip+JdjCjLpsHcoofMdlWyx8TQPit WWTJeAYoLb8EURHAiLtZRGTpWAUxX4h6knr57Z0o+8Cn97i6k9tQB18dCPij0xe62bQh BrHNK5IYJzI7rRGGuYUx6GaLkbEPEMo0v0UUQTuYxtl/WvCpmGFK40bTcS7npkKNuY7/ fpJr78Vhj+D/u40v072OL1TxzxnssUgQrhlLGUT6lhON8WkAbUZR95r8VrFg0qYlR6vF aSYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.236.68 with SMTP id us4mr13693600lbc.91.1427387576569; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.45.203 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:32:56 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ixHlt1hZhiE6p1Zlo757e4EWvPw
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwj7a3jwUV0=iZVtuk+3No1KxJ7rwkUgczbm+s7WjRKeoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: We should drop the useless urn: prefix
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FMT3heO7fRNQILzIU_65oap__nk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:33:00 -0000
Following the discussion at the plenary where I didn't get the chance to put the record straight, I have been looking at the existing IETF URN scheme for RFCs and IDs. I plan to add support for this to the output of my rfctool. The rfc on IETF URNs is farily old and dates from the 'wasted years'. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2648 urn:ietf:rfc:2648 So some history on URLs and URL like things. Back in 1993 I discussed URNs with Tim Berners Lee including the fact that to buy and sell 'stuff' online we would want URLs for cans of baked beans etc. So there should be a UPC: 'URL'. That conversation predates the mistake of introducing the false distinction between URLs and URNs. From a semiotic point of view, ALL URIs are names except for the 'data' URI and the digest based URIs. A DNS name is a name. That is why is is called the Domain NAME System. Whether a URI is a name or a locator depends entirely on how it is used. Order baked beans from Amazon via the UPC code and it is a locator. You choose your 'baked beans resolution service' as Amazon, Peapod, Tesco, etc. Names and locators are distinct use categories but not distinct syntactic categories. The distinction comes from whether the name is sufficiently complete to resolve the identifier to the identified or not. Since urns are not a distinct syntactic category, the justification for the urn: prefix disappears. It is not only useless, it is unnecessary. There is no circumstance in which a urn subscheme and a uri scheme should be allowed to have divergent meanings. Why make people write urn:ietf:rfc:2648 when ietf:rfc:2648 is sufficient? I think it comes down to ring-kissing: Lets make everyone acknowledge the fact that they are participating in our information universe which we control. The insistence on the urn prefix is leading to divergence where it comes to DOIs. The DOI folk understand naming at least as well as we do and they have no interest at all in sticking a 'URN' prefix at the start. http://www.doi.org/factsheets/DOIIdentifierSpecs.html DOI: is a perfectly valid and well defined scheme. We should recognize it as such and assign a top level URI identifier.
- We should drop the useless urn: prefix Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Michael Richardson
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Dave Cridland
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix t.p.
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Dave Cridland
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Larry Masinter
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix l.wood
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Dave Cridland
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Keith Moore
- Re: We should drop the useless urn: prefix Keith Moore