FW: URN duri and tdb spec updated

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Wed, 04 February 2009 04:21 UTC

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: "urn-nid@ietf.org" <urn-nid@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:20:09 -0800
Subject: FW: URN duri and tdb spec updated
Thread-Topic: URN duri and tdb spec updated
Thread-Index: Acl3ae998hFzT/s5QK26Ea/xbJwScgPDrvFwAAHJggA=
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118C8515BB7@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list

(resending)

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:LMM@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:06 PM
To: 'danbri@danbri.org'; www-tag@w3.org WG; 'uri@w3.org'; 'Harry Halpin'
Cc: 'urn-nid@ietf.org'
Subject: URN duri and tdb spec updated

((Please follow up only on uri@w3.org (DO NOT REPLY ALL)))

By recent popular demand, I updated (slightly)

         http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html (and .txt and .xml)
and submitted it to the internet-drafts repository as
               
           draft-masinter-dated-uri-05.txt.

The only substantial change I made since the 2004 draft was to change the interpretation of the date from "first instant" to "last instant", based on a comment by Al Gilman in 2004.

Replies to recent comments:
======
Ray Denenberg asked:
> http://info-uri.info/   Have you considered 'info:' for duri and tbd?
Yes, I considered 'info:/' instead of URN namespaces. I don't think it fits into 'info' because 'duri' and 'tdb' aren't really naming authorities in the same way. This is more like urn:uuid:...
 
I thought about switching to plain URI schemes (without "urn:", e.g., uri:2008:whatever instead of urn:duri:2008:whatever), but it would be a larger change to the draft, and require more explanation.
========
Pat Hayes wrote:
> ... the date should be optional. 

There's no point in 'duri' without a date. I think even 'tdb' needs a date of interpretation, because even when resources are unchanging, the date of interpretation matters. 
========
Stuart Williams wrote:
>  ..  something of a year 10K (or maybe 100K) problem 

The reference to RFC 2550 hints at how to solve that problem.
=========
Harry Halpin and Tim Kindberg wrote reviews or comments in 2004
which I responded to in email, but I didn't update the document
based on their comments and my replies.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net

URN duri and tdb spec updated Larry Masinter
FW: URN duri and tdb spec updated Larry Masinter