Re: [urn] query component in URNs

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 02/20/2013 11:49 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In the interest of moving forward with rfc2141bis and with my document
> editor hat on, I've been reviewing list discussions and earlier
> document versions so that we can be clear about open issues.
>
> Because the fragment identifier issue is quite large and has received
> a lot of discussion, I've decided to focus first on the issue of query
> components in URNs.
>
> Juha Hakala mentioned the topic in late 2010:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01485.html
>
> "From the PersID point of view, both <query> and <fragment> are
> vitally important. We support the idea of reserving <query> for the
> transfer of service parameters as a part of the resolution process."

Why should query semantics for URNs be different than for other URIs?
i.e. Why isn't a query on a URN semantically equivalent to the same 
query on the underlying resource?

Similarly, why isn't a fragment on a URN semantically equivalent to the 
same fragment of the underlying resource?
(granted, fragments are problematic for any kind of resource that can 
map to different formats with different ways of specifying fragments, 
but that's no worse for URNs than for any other kind of URI for which 
content-negotiation comes into play)

I don't think it makes sense to overload URN query and fragment 
semantics to mean different things than they mean for other URIs.

Keith