Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Stu Weibel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> At the risk of dredging up the corpses of old arguments, I would suggest
> that URNs do NOT have a property of persistence.  They are intended to be
> managed as persistent identifiers, and are structured so as to make that
> more straightforward, but identifier persistence has little to do with the
> the identifier per se.  Rather, it has to do solely with the commitment of
> organizations that adopt the responsibility for managing such identifiers
> (and their enabling infrastructure) persistently.  The technology can make
> that harder or easier, but assures nothing.  There is no intrinsic
> persistence property.
>
> stu
>

It is an inherent property?  No.  Is it a property that those requesting
to manage namespaces under the urn scheme sign up for?  Yes.
If you don't want that property, flagging your identifier with something
that will indicate that property is a bad idea.

In other words, I think we agree.

regards,

Ted
>
> On 5/3/10 3:54 PM, "Ted Hardie" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I would agree to this request and add who "we" is in the sentence.  It
>> is not the
>> IETF, obviously, since the IETF recognizes that URNs are a class of URIs
>> with specific properties (e.g. persistence).
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> "We are trying to get people to stop making distinctions between URNs, URLs,
>>> and URIs."
>>>
>>> Could you clarify that sentence.  It seems to suggest that URN, URL, and URI
>>> all mean the same thing, and I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say.
>>>
>>> --Ray
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <[e-mail]>
>>> To: "David Booth" <[e-mail]>; "Pierre-Antoine LaFayette"
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 6:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
>>>
>>>
>>>> I disagree with making general classifications.
>>>>
>>>> URNs suffer a significant lack of public understanding and stigma
>>>> (regardless whether it is justified or not). We are trying to get people to
>>>> stop making distinctions between URNs, URLs, and URIs. The decision whether
>>>> to register a new URI scheme vs. a new URN namespace must not be limited to
>>>> whether it is practical to use a URN. I have a few use cases for a new URI
>>>> scheme where a urn: prefix will pose a serious adoption problem because of
>>>> lack of URN understanding (draft pending).
>>>>
>>>> As for the icon URI scheme, it is up to the authors to decide if their
>>>> scheme will suffer or benefit from using the urn: scheme and make their case
>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>>> EHL
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> On Behalf Of David Booth
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:44 PM
>>>>> To: Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:42 -0400, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette wrote:
>>>>>> In my provisional URI scheme registration request with IANA, my
>>>>>> reviewer noted that it may be preferable to use a URN namespace rather
>>>>>> than create a new URI scheme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> urn:icon:ext:pdf:small
>>>>>> urn:icon:mime:text:plain:64
>>>>>> urn:icon:unknown
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> instead of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> icon:.pdf;small
>>>>>> icon:text:plain;64
>>>>>> icon:unknown
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to run this by the list to see what the general opinion is on
>>>>>> this matter. What are the advantages/disadvantages and limitations of
>>>>>> each? I'm not sure which is more appropriate for the icon URI's use
>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://draft-icon-uri-scheme.googlecode.com/hg/draft-lafayette-icon-ur
>>>>>> i-scheme-00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with your reviewer.  IMO, if there isn't a new protocol defined
>>>>> for it,
>>>>> there is no need for a new URI scheme.  URNs are intended for exactly
>>>>> this
>>>>> kind of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>>>>> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
>>>>>
>>>>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>>>>> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>
>
>