Re: URN UUID question

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/4/14, 8:32 AM, Joel Kalvesmaki wrote:
> I am developing an XML data model that requires users to name versions
> of a document. Each version's name should be unique, but patterned to
> allow anyone (human or computer) to associate it with the names of other
> versions of that document and to place it in chronological sequence. The
> name of each version must be a single string, specifically a IRI/URI (to
> facilitate, among other things, straightforward declarations in RDF). It
> should not be split into two elements. Naming must be as decentralized
> as possible.
>
> My favored scheme for naming these entities would concatenate a UUID
> (any style), a middle delimiter, and an ISO date/dateTime, e.g.,
>
> urn:uuid:f60330fd-1900-44ac-a825-de70074e142e::2014-02-07Z
> urn:uuid:f60330fd-1900-44ac-a825-de70074e142e::2014-02-28T00:20:58.3Z
>
> Would it be misleading to begin such a string with "urn:uuid:" and if
> so, what are the alternative best practices?
>
> Perhaps there already exists a urn scheme that does what I intend?
>
> Are there any other issues I should consider before adopting a naming
> scheme like this?

As far as I can see, you don't really need or necessarily want the 
"urn:uuid:" string at the front. Why not things like this?

f60330fd-1900-44ac-a825-de70074e142e::2014-02-07Z
f60330fd-1900-44ac-a825-de70074e142e::2014-02-28T00:20:58.3Z

Peter