Re: [urn] new draft 10 - new form (RE: new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections)

"Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> Mon, 25 November 2019 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61086120FA7 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:29:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hD487p_ZEhOV for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from loire.is.ed.ac.uk (loire.is.ed.ac.uk [129.215.16.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EE011208BF for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.202.41]) by loire.is.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id xAPMSnR6022394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:28:49 GMT
Received: from ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.24.151]) by crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id xAPMSlXT023812; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:28:47 GMT
Received: from ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id xAPMSll7003153; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:28:47 GMT
Received: (from ht@localhost) by ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id xAPMSjar003151; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:28:45 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk: ht set sender to ht@inf.ed.ac.uk using -f
To: Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk>
Cc: "'Hakala, Juha E'" <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
References: <2396dbcf66bb4c8689bcbabca2cc8492@kb.dk>
From: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:28:45 +0000
In-Reply-To: <2396dbcf66bb4c8689bcbabca2cc8492@kb.dk> (Eld Zierau's message of "Fri\, 11 Oct 2019 13\:43\:39 +0000")
Message-ID: <f5by2w3380y.fsf@ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1012 (Gnus v5.10.12) XEmacs/21.5-b34 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at loire.is.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.84, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 129.215.16.10
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/PWIGOIrDBTGo_KVJe2eTjbhTPiI>
Subject: Re: [urn] new draft 10 - new form (RE: new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections)
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/urn/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 22:29:26 -0000

I continue to be confused by various aspects of this proposal.

First confusion (more to follow):

The fourth constituent of a PWID, the *precision-spec*, now has only two
possible values, 'part' and 'page', which appear to be attempting to
distinguish between, respectively,

 1) the representation that is/was retrievable for the archived-uri as
    at the archival-time;

 2) a (Content-type conformant?) rendering of that representation
    (with all other digital objects implicated in that rendering
    (e.g. scripts, stylesheets, icons, graphics, fonts, ..., to say
    nothing of advertisements) being also retrieved from the same
    archive?  As it the same archival-time?).  Let's just say I can't
    imagine any creator of a PWID having any idea of when they are
    supposed to use which, or any consumer of one to have any idea of
    what they are meant to do as a consequence of which is present.

Or is 'page' to be understood as meaning that the PWID as a whole is
meant by its minter to denote the same resource (in the RFC 3986 sense
of the word) that the archived URI denoted at the time of archiving?

The discussion of the use of 'page' in the worked example in the
*Resolution* section seems to support either interpretation.

It would help if a more detailed description of what the successful
resolution of the example PWID, that is

  urn:pwid:archive.org:2016-01-22T10:08:23Z:page:https://www.dr.dk

would look like.  Per RFC3986, this should be a representation of the
resource identified by the example PWID.

And, how would that be different if the example PWID had been

  urn:pwid:archive.org:2016-01-22T10:08:23Z:part:https://www.dr.dk

?

How does this distinction survive a change of media type?  To image/png,
or application/pdf, or audio/ogg?

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.