[urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.1.0

[Chris Day <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars –

I think we want to proceed with the registration as is, without the changes mentioned.

There is some internal wrangling over the clarifying wording of the EPC and GS1 relationship, and this will take time. A subsequent corrigendum may arise.



Chris Day
Technical Business Analyst
AI & Data Sustainability
GS1 Global Office
T [phone]
M [phone]
E [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.gs1.org<http://www.gs1.org/>

[cid:image001.png@01DD0EE6.F15FD780]<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/[e-mail]?anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>

Book time to meet with me<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/[e-mail]?anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>



From: Lars G. Svensson <lars.svensson=[e-mail]>
Sent: 08 July 2026 12:57
To: Chris Day <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: AW: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.1.0

Chris, all,

The registration of the gs1 namespace (version 6.1.0) is fine with me.

I have two minor suggestions that arised when I read _only_ the registration template (§ 2):
* It would be helpful to have links to the relevant ancillary documentation.
* In the section "Identifier attribution semantics" it would be helpful to have some text clarifying the relation between GS1-Identifiers and EPC-Identifiers. My suggestion is something along the lines of
[[
URNs in the id branch of the gs1 namespace are related to URNs in the epc namespace [RFC5134] in that they can be used to convey product data including gtin, serial number etc. For a further discussion of this relation, please refer to §3.1 of <the enclosing I-D>.
]]
That would help to make the registration template work as a stand-alone document. If you choose not to make the changes, I'm fine with the document as-is, too.

Best,

Lars

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[e-mail]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2026 20:42
An: Chris Day <chris.day=[e-mail]<mailto:chris.day=[e-mail]>>; Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Phil Archer <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mark Harrison <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Betreff: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.0.0

Chris, thanks for the quick turnaround on these edits, and thanks to Dale for his reviews. I'll endeavor to send feedback soon.

Peter

On 6/11/26 3:46 AM, Chris Day wrote:
> Hi Dale -
>
> Please find attached an updated revision with the concerns addressed.
>
> Again, thank you for your diligence, it's really appreciated.
>
>
>
> Chris Day
> Technical Business Analyst
> AI & Data Sustainability
> GS1 Global Office
> T [phone]
> M [phone]
> E [e-mail]
> www.gs1.org<http://www.gs1.org>
>
>
>
> Book time to meet with me
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: 11 June 2026 02:43
> To: Chris Day <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Phil Archer
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mark Harrison <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.0.0
>
> Version 6.0.0 takes care of most of my concerns, and I am in favor of
> approving the registration. However there are a couple of points that
> remain:
>
> The structure of the document might be improved. Specifically, if section 2 is the namespace registration, it should work as a stand-alone document. However, it isn't stand-alone in one respect: the Syntax section gives only an informal grammar, referring to the ABNF in Appendix A. ISTM that the registration should contain the proper grammar.
>
> Now if the whole document was approved as an RFC, then the template Syntax section could just refer to "Appendix A of RFC xxxx". But my expectation is that GS1 wants to get the registration approved faster than the RFC process.
>
> One possible solution is to move the informal grammar from the section
> 2
> (template) Syntax clause into section 1 (introduction), possibly just after the listing of the three categories of URNs. Then move the grammar from Appendix A into the Syntax clause. That makes the template stand-alone but still presents the reader with the informal grammar before the ABNF.
>
> The second point is verifying that GS1 has, or definitely will, provide some sort of formal guidance/standard that explains how the URNs are to be attributed. E.g., given "urn:gs1:gdd:bie:TradeItem.netContent", is there text that states what document/text/concept this URN names? This is opposed to there being a standardized table named "TradeItem" with an entry named "netContent" but no explicit text stating what the table entries imply about GS1 URNs.
>
> Now I expect that for the gdd:bie, gdd:bdt, gdd:cl, and std branches this will be done, people are unlikely to overlook that. But I'm slightly concerned about the <ai> branch. It appears that <ai> URNs are semantically collections of attribute names and values. It wouldn't be entirely surprising if explicitly specifying that fact (and exactly how collections are to be interpreted based on their members) might be overlooked during standards development.
>
> Dale
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium).
> If you are not the addressee, or if this has been copied or sent to you in error, you must not use data herein for any purpose, you must delete it, and should inform the sender.
> GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or completeness, and opinions expressed are those of the author alone.
> GS1 may monitor communications.
> Third party rights acknowledged.
> (c) 2020.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail are  confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium). 
If you are not the addressee, or if this has been copied or sent to you in error, you must not use data herein for any purpose, you must delete it, and should inform the sender. 
GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or completeness, and opinions expressed are those of the author alone. 
GS1 may monitor communications. 
Third party rights acknowledged. 
(c) 2020.