Re: URN UUID question

Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Mon, 24 March 2014 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <sandro@w3.org>
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 325461A01D7 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 04:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 z8UA_4MqrsHo for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 04:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jay.w3.org (ssh.w3.org [128.30.52.60]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE16A1A01D4 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 04:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [78.100.51.155] (helo=[172.20.3.110]) by jay.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sandro@w3.org>) id 1WS3J3-00009v-Mj; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 07:44:42 -0400
Message-ID: <53301AA4.30402@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:44:36 +0300
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Joel Kalvesmaki <kalvesmaki@gmail.com>, "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Subject: Re: URN UUID question
References: <CALPpAZ_fLwK80dcM5ty5pp2pLiafpW36uvK2WoJdKpuaWX6PQw@mail.gmail.com> <201403192139.s2JLdchi012675@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CALPpAZ8oqUMg6Q+HZjhkyCDPGOnFYYrrrXY=Jxr8OJH2YU39FQ@mail.gmail.com> <532FFF6A.6080206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <532FFF6A.6080206@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/SnqEGkAJmbyLjgZDk6gSJLXyD3I
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org, timothy@hpl.hp.com
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: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:44:48 -0000

On 03/24/2014 12:48 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2014/03/20 09:15, Joel Kalvesmaki wrote:
>
>> I need unique, persistent names. The name needs to be a single 
>> IRI/URI to
>> allow any version of any document to be named easily in any RDF
>> declarations any third party might want to make.
>
>> After reading the specs on the tag URN, I'm very impressed, and think 
>> that
>> it will suit the XML model nicely. Tag URNs provide two extra bonuses I
>> hadn't anticipated: human readability and decentralized unique agent
>> identification.
>>
>> I do wish IRI forms of tag URNs had gotten off the ground, but maybe 
>> that
>> will come some day?
>
> Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4151, that indeed seems to 
> be an unfortunate oversight.
>
> Instead of
> >>>>
>    In the interests of tractability to humans, tags SHOULD NOT be minted
>    with percent-encoded parts.  However, the tag syntax does allow
>    percent-encoded characters in the "pchar" elements (defined in RFC
>    3986 [1]).
> >>>>
>
> It should allow percent-encoded parts also in the authorityName part, 
> and specify that in all cases, such percent-encoded parts must be 
> created and interpreted using UTF-8. After all, that's what RFC 3986 
> (which is heavily cited) says for authority names.
>

Interesting.   I'm trying to remember the motivations here.

Certainly unnecessary percent encoding is a problem because it causes 
confusion about whether two URIs are the same.   (If you have to ask 
that, they are not.   But people may not realize that.   Some people 
might think "tag:sandro@hawke.org,2014:A" and 
"tag:sandro@hawke.org,2014:%41" are the same, but they are not.)

On the authorityName, if it's a DNSName, presumably you'd use punycode, 
not percent encoding, right?   If it's an emailAddress, presumably you'd 
use punycode for the DNSname part of it.  I don't know what one's 
supposed to use for the part before the @ in an email address?      I 
haven't kept up on the email standards.    Is there consensus about that?

> Sandro, Tim, is there a chance this can be fixed sooner or later?
>

I'm not using or endorsing tag: URIs at all these days.   From my 
perspective, http or https URLs are better in very-nearly every 
situation.    But I wouldn't be opposed to someone else updating the tag 
URI spec.

Joel, can I ask why you can't or don't want to use an http or https URL 
instead of a tag?

      -- Sandro

> Regards, Martin.
>