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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 08/17/2012 08:09 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-08-17 13:57, Keith Moore wrote:
>> ...
>> I don't actually have a problem with UUID URNs in principle, so long as
>> the mechanisms used to generate UUIDs actually ensure that they're
>> unique. (If memory serves, they do, but it's been awhile since I've read
>> the spec).   As long as people use UUID URNs to refer to resources, such
>> usage is perfectly consistent with the intended purpose of URNs.  And I
>> certainly am not suggesting that UUID URNs be deprecated, or any thing
>> similarly disruptive.
>>
>> The problem I have is with the idea that has emerged that if you need an
>> ID that happens to be a URI, a URN is the right thing to use. I've
>> seen a lot of things labeled "urn:" that didn't refer to resources, or
>> worse, weren't unique at all, apparently because of this idea.
>> ...
>
> Do you have a definition of "resource" different from:
>
> "the term "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be 
> identified by a URI" -- 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.1.1>
>
> ?

That's not a very useful definition for determining whether a URN is 
appropriate.  But my point is that a URN should name _something_.

In addition, it needs to be clear what is being named by the URN. 
Otherwise there's no way to ensure persistence of the binding between 
the URN and the resource.

Keith