Re: URN UUID question

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

> From: Joel Kalvesmaki <[e-mail]>

> Are there any other issues I should consider before adopting a naming
> scheme like this?

There are many issues to be considered.  As you state it, the problem
is very unconstrained.  At the very least, why you want it to be a URN
is not explained.

> [1:text/plain Hide]
> 
> 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?

Given that the resulting string would not be a legitimate URN, the
format is somewhat deceiving.  I suggest that the delimiter between
the parts be a character that is not valid in URIs, thus clearly
separating the URN from the version.

Another alternative is to assign documents object IDs, and using the
last number in the object ID to indicate the sequence.  Thus,

urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.14490.4.23178

designates a document (through its history), wile the various versions
of it are:

urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.14490.4.23178.1
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.14490.4.23178.2
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.14490.4.23178.3
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.14490.4.23178.4
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.14490.4.23178.5

Dale