Re: [urn] META URN namespace registration

Hi Juha,

Thanks for confirming. I will contact IANA about adding this namespace 
to the registry.

Peter

On 11/14/22 4:34 AM, Hakala, Juha E wrote:
> Hello Peter; all,
> 
> the latest version of the the registration request is the one sent 2020-05-27.
> 
> In this case providing additional information is useful, since it gives potential users an idea of benefits these URNs may provide.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Juha
> 
> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
> Lähetetty: tiistai 8. marraskuuta 2022 22.56
> Vastaanottaja: Hakala, Juha E <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>; Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com>
> Kopio: urn@ietf.org; Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> Aihe: Re: [urn] META URN namespace registration
> 
> Hello Juha,
> 
> As far as I can see, this namespace identifier is ready to be registered. For the avoidance of doubt, would you mind verifying that the most up-to-date version is contained in the document you sent to this list on 2020-05-27?
> 
> (Although that completed registration template does not exactly conform to RFC 8141, it errs on the side of including more information than required by RFC 8141, so it seems acceptable to me; but I would be happy to work with you on moving around some of the content so that it is more
> conformant.)
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 5/26/20 11:49 PM, Hakala, Juha E wrote:
>> Hello Dale; all,
>>
>> I have made two changes to the registration request (see below). Please let me know if any further changes are required.
>>
>> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
>> Lähettäjä: Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com>
>> Lähetetty: keskiviikko 27. toukokuuta 2020 5.55
>> Vastaanottaja: Hakala, Juha E <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
>> Kopio: urn@ietf.org
>> Aihe: Re: [urn] META URN namespace registration
>>
>> This looks good to me, except possibly these:
>>
>>       Namespace URN:META:MARC: contains URNs which identify the tags of
>>
>> You almost certainly don't want the final ":", as that presupposes that a sub-namespace code will follow.  Other examples use "URN:META:MARC".
>>
>> Juha: I have removed the final ":" from the attached version.
>>
>>       Assuming that the registered resolver base URL for urn:meta:dc is
>>       http://example.com/, urn:meta:dc:terms-title would be resolved by
>>       fetching
>>
>>       http://example.com/urn:meta:dc:terms-title
>>
>> After looking at these again, I realize that there is an open question whether the prefix is "dc:terms" or "dc".  There is no mention in the registrations that "dc:terms" is a defined sub-namespace, but nothing rules out that it exists.  If the intended prefix is "dc", then the URN should be "urn:meta:dc-terms-title".  If the intended prefix is "dc:terms", it would prevent the reader from making this mistake if you state that explicitly.  Indeed, if "dc" is expected to have sub-namespaces, it might be useful to annotate its registration with their names.
>>
>> Juha: Dublin Core has currently two namespaces, /terms/ and /elements/1.1/. In the registration request, there are now two Dublin Core -related sub-namespaces in the expanded Example 2, urn:meta:dc:terms and urn:meta:dc:elements1.1.
>>
>> FYI, elements from /elements/1.1/ are replicated as properties in /terms/, but definitions of these properties differ slightly from those used for elements in /elements/1.1/. Therefore property Title in /terms/ is not exactly the same as element Title in /elements/1.1/.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Juha
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> urn mailing list
>> urn@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
> 