Re: URN UUID question (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 19 March 2014 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B711A07E2 for <>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5QTBkFjNeRNM for <>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:17]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD05F1A07F2 for <>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id fVMR1n0020bG4ec5AZffTk; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:39:39 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id fZff1n00F1KKtkw3PZffsC; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:39:39 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s2JLddUU012676; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:39:39 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s2JLdchi012675; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:39:38 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:39:38 -0400
Message-Id: <>
From: (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: (Dale R. Worley)
To: Joel Kalvesmaki <>
In-reply-to: <> (
Subject: Re: URN UUID question
References: <>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1395265179; bh=5Hq1uT/6rboXqNwgZZf4uTK/k3VxRNhfHaV8YjPhvM4=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=vOymfe7w3FlIc7TDhGrPhREkX8OwEcNhoRn93qQZXscs9b8IPYvkuY7A522FrSnCg vUlmgbmi/O+JNa2D8l6REt1Muz5i832C9fiHvoKsrO4kHHoFhKnIIU5sioTiHMbr9G 8DjbW2lJKpCP0U1/cgHF0F0huk8w7OeSiN3GUrR7s6vIywr6/ON4OEYM3MCYhKX/bR jZyYiccxii/w4pyTMWWg7vFw/4Ge9rpfct5AaxEtUQIeQPOIyoLijTeewGQzfiTOoS zGb59Ywp7S6NIPZPCj3rXT6H/frf4qwrbkgfV8tbchWGigk/1AowkZOpKljv8UAIE2 XLCubdEMqQNfg==
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:39:57 -0000

> From: Joel Kalvesmaki <>

> 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,


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