Re: [URN] Agenda for Washington Meeting -- Questions on URN

["Sam Sun" <[e-mail]>]

This is exactly the point I want to make clear. That is:

URN specification SHOULD allow for various schemes using whatever syntax
they define, and that the handle scheme (hdl:) is a particular type of URN
scheme.

It is my believe that a Handle is a URN, and can be presented in syntax of
either "hdl:" or "urn:hdl:". When used under "urn:hdl:" syntax, it is
subject to the syntax rules defined by the URN Syntax draft
(ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urn-syntax-05.txt). And
when presented using "hdl:" syntax, it follows the syntax defined by the
Handle Syntax draft
(ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-sun-handle-system-00.txt).

Sam
[e-mail]


-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca S. Guenther <[e-mail]>
To: Sam X. Sun <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Daniel Jr. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [URN] Agenda for Washington Meeting -- Questions on URN


>On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Sam X. Sun wrote:
>
>>
>> First of all, what I meant by implementation should really be "Syntax
>> definition". It's true that we may never be able to address all possible
>> syntax definitions that ever come up. But limiting URN to one particular
>> syntax definition has the effect of rejecting other URN syntax based on
>> other URL/URI schemes. While "urn:" scheme has its nice feature of easy
>> input from standard English Keyboard, "hdl:" (handle system) scheme has
its
>> advantage of requiring less reserved/excluded characters and allowing
>> native characters to be used without hex encoding, and the "pdi:"
>> (persistent document identifier) scheme has been used for document
>> identification for years.
>
>.....stuff deleted....
>
>> In summary, my point is that "urn:" syntax, as it defined now, serves
well
>> as one URN "syntax definition", or one URN name space. But URN as a
general
>> concept for persistent naming scheme, may not necessarily be restricted
to
>> one URI/URL scheme. Besides "urn:", we now have seen "hdl:" and "pdi:"
>> claiming to be under the URN framework. And there could very well be
other
>> URI/URL schemes to be proposed to serve the same purpose, but with
>> different syntaxes, and with their own set of implementations.
>>
>>
>> Thanks much for your response...
>> Sam
>> [e-mail]
>
>I've been trying to follow these discussions and am feeling confused. I
>always thought that the URN specification allows for various schemes using
>whatever syntax they define, and that the handle scheme (hdl:) was a
>particular type of URN scheme. That is how we represented it to the MARC
>world when we requested the addition of a data element to accommodate a
>URN.  Although the particular need was for a handle in a MARC record, our
>intention was to accommodate URNs in general.  This message implies that
>you have a URN or you have a handle, and a handle is not a URN. Please
>clarify.
>
>Rebecca
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
>^^  Senior MARC Standards Specialist                      ^^
>^^  Network Development and MARC Standards Office         ^^
>^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
>^^  Washington, DC 20540-4020                             ^^
>^^  [phone] (voice)    [phone] (FAX)        ^^
>^^  [e-mail]                                          ^^
>^^                                                        ^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>