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

[Michael Mealling <[e-mail]>]

Sam Sun said this:
> 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).
> 

This sounds somewhat acceptable. We have the same situation with
CIDs. There is a CID URL proposal and probably will be a CID URN namespace
proposed. The problem with this is that its going to confuse the hell
out of the consumer. Does he put urn: on the front or not? Which is 
better: a non-confused customer with full interoperability or an encoded '#'?

BUT, "hdl:" is not a URN because it isn't _uniform_. It has syntax rules
that are different from the other URNs that were specified in RFC2141. "hdl:"
is a URI at the basic level. But it is a URI that has some aspects of
naming which coincide with what the URN framework specifies. But not until you 
stick "urn:" on the front does anyone know you are following all of the 
rules that URNs say you have to follow. E.g. if I say a "hdl:" URI come 
floating by I wouldn't know how it's naming characteristics related to 
other URIs that had naming type qualities. But if you put "urn:" in front 
then I know that you are agreeing to live within the framework of the 
_Uniform_ Resource Name.  Before you did that you were just claiming to 
be a Resource Name that was encoded as a URI.

I do have one major nit to pick as well. The URN Syntax document is no
longer a draft. It is RFC2141 and is a Standards Track document. Please
refer to it as RFC2141 since the drafts are now gone and should not be
referenced.

-MM

> -----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]                                          ^^
> >^^                                                        ^^
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
> >
> 


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	| 505 Huntmar Park Drive       | Phone:  [phone]
Software Engineer	| Herndon, VA 22070	       | Fax:    [phone]
Network Solutions	| <URL:http://www.netsol.com>  | [e-mail]