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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

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.

Keith