Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urn-example-00

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-01-09 17:31, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 11:19 AM, Michael Mealling wrote:
>> Is it really 1999 all over again? Maybe I should by come CMGI stock.
>>
>> With a couple of noted exceptions this is one area where the W3C and
>> the IETF's URN group agreed: That the definition of 'resource'  is the
>> thing identified by a URI. That minting any URI immediately causes its
>> resource to come into being in the abstract. Some URI scheme
>> specifications can restrict that it limits resource to be sequences of
>> bits on a network but that is a limitation of that particular URI. We
>> never set that limit for URNs. In other words, the rough consensus
>> from back then was Julian is right, that ALL URIs identify 'resources'
>> by definition. Merely being identified by a URI _makes_ it a resource.
>
> It's the cases where there is no "it" that concern me.   People seem to
> have gotten the idea that URNs aren't resource identifiers, but rather,
> nonces.

Well.

Your use of the term "resource" is in conflict with the RFC 3986 definition.

I could ask you for your definition but I fear we'll end up with totally 
pointless philosophical discussion :-)

Best regards, Julian