Re: [urn] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

I think some of the questions that we're dealing with are fairly deep
and they're not being addressed well.

What is really under debate is overhauling URNs.  That is, producing a
a new syntax (and possibly semantics) of URNs that is not necessarily
upward-compatible with RFC 2141.

But what I'm not seeing is a discussion of the factors that would
drive such a decision:

- Why is the current framework inadequate?

- How will use of URNs of the new type coexist with URNs of the old
  type?

In particular, I've seen repeated statements that the current
framework is inadequate for the future development of URNs, but I
haven't seen even a summary of the discussion, nor any pointer to the
record of the discussion discussion itself, nor how to participate in
that discussion.

Dale