Re: [urn] URN fragments

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 26 February 2013 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 16B1921F8901 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:01:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e690-ZiJQ0Ng for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490D721F8921 for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.34]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M7nFW-1V5LJ33kPY-00vQCR for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:01:13 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 16:01:13 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.102]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 26 Feb 2013 17:01:13 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18m4e9KfIMmDVOJetb3ghdJentyvN8c4PseA4u4Tz hITOzYDaeSp0/U
Message-ID: <512CDC48.9070703@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:01:12 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
References: <512606BC.7020902@helsinki.fi> <5126E7D6.6050301@stpeter.im> <512716C6.4090308@helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <512716C6.4090308@helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] URN fragments
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:01:23 -0000

On 2013-02-22 07:57, Juha Hakala wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22.2.2013 5:36, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Hi Juha, this model sounds similar to what you described for the query
>> component: the fragment can be "added to the URN". I'm not sure what
>> that means. When you add a query component or a fragment identifier to
>> the URN, is that now a different URN (which wasn't assigned by the
>> minting organization or in accordance with the minting algorithm)? Or
>> is "a URN with some additional data appended" and therefore not really
>> a URN anymore? Or is actually a URI (such as an HTTP URI) whose path
>> is the URN itself as just a string of characters embedded in the
>> broader URI?
>
> Despite the addition of fragment and query the URN itself remains the
> same, even though the HTTP URI changes.
> ...

Well, it's a different string, thus a different URN.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian