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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 04:09 06-05-2014, John C Klensin wrote:
>I think it is obvious that different groups have different
>perceived requirements.  For better or worse and despite a sense
>that more education and listening would be helpful, I think the
>"my perspective is right and you are wrong" tone of many of the
>recent discussions are not leading us toward progress.

I agree that the recent discussions are not leading towards progress.

>Perhaps a more useful way to look at this is to try to
>understand the needs of real communities [1] and then figure out
>what we need to have in a URN standard to meet those needs.  My
>working hypothesis is that, after trying to do with within the
>constraints of 3986 and the compromises people are willing to
>make is that it is not possible.  I hope we can do better than
>    urn:nid:<stuff>
>but maybe, if all we can do is to push NIS and tail syntax to
>NID definitions and registrations, that is better than permanent
>(sic) paralysis.

Factual information would help in understanding the needs of the 
various communities.  I am not sure whether that would lead towards 
progress.  The probability of "we can do better" is very low.

Regards,
-sm