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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:59 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> That set of distinctions is not just pedantry.  If "URN" mean
> whatever someone claims it means at a given moment, then we
> don't have a specific category of identifier, we just have a
> very generic term for some variety of identifier.  For the
> information it contains, one might as well have the above
> statement read "UPC code for a can of baked beans is an
> Ironduck".

In GSS land we've switched (for new interfaces) from using ASN/1 OIDs
to  using URNs.  Our OIDs name no objects and our URNs no resources.
They are merely identifiers with reasonable namespaces and name
allocation policies.  URNs are much easier to use for this purpose
(one look at how the GSS-API C language bindings handle OIDs should
make this clear!).  Is this an abuse of URNs?  Does/should anyone
care?  IMO: "no", and "no".  But it helps to have registered
identifiers, so we can find the specifications (or at least some
information) that describe their semantics.  Or perhaps our uses of
OIDs/URNs do in fact name objects/resources, if we give specific
behaviors/semantics the honor of being objects/resources.

For me, all that matters when it comes to URNs is that we agree to
namespace partitioning and registries for those uses that warrant
them.  If you want to call URNs "Ironducks", so be it.

Nico
--