Re: [urn] NEW NAMESPACE REGISTRATION: KNX

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2023-09-05 03:54, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Michael Critchfield <[e-mail]> writes:
>> As KNX Association cvba, we would like to register the following
>> Namespace from our KNX IoT Point API Specification with you for
>> listing in Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespaces
> 
>> Reference is our KNX IoT Point API Specification available on
>> https://schema.knx.org.  Specifically, the KNX IoT Point API
>> Specification is found under this link
>> https://knxcloud.org/index.php/s/KNjAyyO0ojm5LSc/download.

> In regard to "relative URNs", comparing the KNX document line 272
> ("Relative URN without namespace identifier (with ":" at the
> beginning)") with RFC 8141 section 4.3 ("URNs and Relative References")
> and RFC 3986 (the syntax of "relative-ref"), I see that relative URNs
> (in the KNX sense) *must* start with ":", but relative URIs (in the IETF
> sense) *never* start with ":".  So though we might consider the KNX
> definition confusing, there is no contradiction, as syntax distinguishes
> whether a "relative URN" is to be interpreted per KNX or per RFC 3986.

I'm really concerned that starting to use the term "relative URN" in two 
different ways will cause I lot of confusion. I strongly suggest that 
the KNX spec do not use the term "relative URN". If it turns out that 
there's no good other word for the concept, at least make sure that it's 
always written "KNX relative URN", and that the spec clearly calls out 
the fact that this is different from "relative URN".

Regards,    Martin.