Re: URN UUID question

Joel Kalvesmaki <kalvesmaki@gmail.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <kalvesmaki@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D001A081E for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eoh0N1lOTcr9 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53CD1A088D for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id cz12so9159012veb.21 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cv45uLeyzhzng/1DJ+sY4miz1TCF0DCPU42EiyAzLWY=; b=FALzwAjD+/ulVpzpTJtqBja98ZLocyVF423pMgKu6nyyZd+FFgYUwNy5WTH0ycY+XI jC2ZpmIjSfLVhFTZTHz0GEDBS7qXPME6Iy0tuJ7SFwAXkwyp5Y5vvXmEVblqtQLtYx+e 68HL7fTeAwE/Fh7kmk/fmq8KCp2Mp2ApLKnh+IRjA4wQtHSXW7KfJOup8iMKaKv1rdwx ZfRHNO+uMNN3C+KhTxGdDim0GcNAb/eo2I2YgMQqMEdN1lCXi7fxS5Yx6vpeCWBZS01/ NlXXVFBROXCWp6qtjy6iLScrwcOGjsXDToFsyIrChPA7rv2U3LluHAamTNHD5aaX+N+c DhSQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.238.35 with SMTP id vh3mr29560396vec.16.1394578658818; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.226.71 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <531F6B92.9010508@stpeter.im>
References: <CALPpAZ_fLwK80dcM5ty5pp2pLiafpW36uvK2WoJdKpuaWX6PQw@mail.gmail.com> <531F46B1.1030301@stpeter.im> <CALPpAZ9TStXyhv-rqtfMXT=bB8q0ds=E5xqiZ=Ae=KvupjET_Q@mail.gmail.com> <531F6B92.9010508@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:57:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CALPpAZ_poO73_iDvq-jZ+AHewYJBe=myZP0L334a=FU9rTp64Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: URN UUID question
From: Joel Kalvesmaki <kalvesmaki@gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb0439691ff7e04f45ca5ac
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/SEzjP5GEwowVWt8tA_3yfDYv06o
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:57:47 -0000

Thank you, Peter--I had never heard of this URN format before. It deserves
to be better known. I love the elegance of the tag URI. It just might suit
my needs even better than UUIDs.

Best wishes,

jk


On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote;wrote:

> It sounds to me as if you might want to use the 'tag' URI scheme:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4151
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 3/11/14, 1:31 PM, Joel Kalvesmaki wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. I had considered that option, but the string
>> must conform to XML schema's <anyURI>,[1] to suit the purposes I
>> mentioned (RDF, etc.). And no <anyURI> may begin with a numeral. It
>> would also be important to have a scheme that any human or computer
>> would recognize immediately as a URN.
>>
>> I had also considered the following (where NN = a suitable
>> project-specific abbreviation or dt = date-time, as a project-agnostic
>> urn scheme):
>>
>> urn:uuid-NN:f60330fd-1900-44ac-a825-__de70074e142e::2014-02-07Z
>> urn:uuid-dt:f60330fd-1900-44ac-a825-__de70074e142e::2014-02-07Z
>>
>>
>> But would either one require registration with IANA? If so, what what's
>> the process and is it worthwhile? I have heard of at least one project
>> that has simply coined its own urn:NNN: scheme on its own, but I do not
>> fully understand what consequences face anyone setting out on that
>> direction.
>>
>> One other possibility occurs to me, that of treating the time-date stamp
>> as a fragment identifier:
>> urn:uuid:f60330fd-1900-44ac-a825-__de70074e142e#2014-02-07Z
>>
>>
>> But I suspect that would violate the RFC 4122 definition, no?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> jk
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im
>> <mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>> wrote:
>>
>>     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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Joel Kalvesmaki
kalvesmaki.com