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

Let me add my perspective.  I don't personally care about the "persistence" 
aspect, but for the sake of discussion let's say that URNs are persistent. I 
feel that it is the emphasis on persistence that causes the confusion that 
gets cited all the time between URNs and URIs.

I think that when people *describe* URNs as persistent, then others (who are 
trying to understand URNs) interpret this description as the *defintion* and 
say "ah, now I understand, URNs are just persistent URIs". And that's a 
horrible definition of URNs but unfortunately it's the one that you see more 
than any other.   It leads to preposterous statements like:

http://www.example.com/abc    is a URN, because it is persistent.
http://www.example.com/xyx    is not a URN, because it is not persistent.

The definition of URN should be along these lines:

"URIs have schemes.   'http:', 'mailto:', etc.   'urn:' is one of those 
schemes.   Thus a URN is a URI that begins with 'urn:' "  Then add whatever 
you want after that, about persistence or whatever you like.  But I really 
think it would help reduce confusion if whenever someone asks "what's a URN 
you begin with this.

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stu Weibel" <weibel@oclc.org>
To: "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; "Library of Congress Ray Denenberg" 
<rden@loc.gov>
Cc: <uri-review@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace

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

On 5/3/10 3:54 PM, "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com> 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
> <rden@loc.gov> 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" 
>> <eran@hueniverse.com>
>> To: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>; "Pierre-Antoine LaFayette"
>> <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca>
>> Cc: <uri-review@ietf.org>
>> 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: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces@ietf.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of David Booth
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:44 PM
>>>> To: Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
>>>> Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
>>>> 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
>>>> Uri-review@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>> Uri-review@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> Uri-review@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>