Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt

[Juha Hakala <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-12-22 14:06, Juha Hakala wrote:
>> ...
> 
> Here's a high level comment: I think that adding requirements on 
> resolution services is a step into the wrong direction. In particular, 
> it's totally OK that urn:uuids are not resolvable, because that's by 
> design.

The current working draft of RFC2483bis makes it clear that there is no 
such thing as an obligatory resolution service. But it does require that 
at least one service is supported, since I could not see the point of 
URNs which are a priori unresolvable.

After reading RFC 4122 (urn:uuid namespace specification) I realize it 
is necessary to drop the resolvability requirement, so RFC2483bis will 
allow namespaces with zero services. This change can be done easily 
enough. Resolution related requirements can be weeded from other 
relevant I-Ds as well.

Is there a way to estimate how widely the UUID community is using 
urn:uuids, and for what purposes?

> Do you want to force identifiers like these into different URI schemes? 
> Why?

To be honest, I would rather not see another URN namespace like uuid, 
since most users of persistent identifier systems have service 
expectations based on resolvability. And URN:UUIDs a priori will not 
fulfill any of these expectations. But based on what Peter said earlier, 
I suppose URN:UUID is and will be different from (all/most) other URN 
namespaces in this respect.

> Also, once you start to focus too much on resolution then you'll 
> inevitably get people asking why you don't start with a scheme that 
> already is resolvable in the first place. In the end, stability of URIs 
> depends mainly on those who mint them, not on the actual notation.

Yes, there is a broad agreement among the people who deal with long term 
preservation of digital content that preservation is primarily an 
organizational issue.

The reason why resolution is important is that URN and other persistent 
identifiers will only become popular if they can provide added value; 
services which cool URIs etc. cannot support at all, or could only 
support with difficulty. These services are often based on resolution. 
There are good reasons for keeping services and identification apart 
(for instance, services are technology driven and will change over 
time), which is why the URN community has tried to avoid conflicts here, 
both in the existing URN RFCs and in the documents currently under 
development.

All the best,

Juha

> Best regards, Julian
> 

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor, standardisation and IT

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Email [e-mail], tel [phone]