Subject: [urn] next steps

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:42:10 -0600

I have a revised I-D almost ready for consideration by the WG, which I 
plan to submit tonight.

Two things to note:

1. Because of his significant contributions to the concepts and text, I 
have added John Klensin as co-author.

2. To reduce confusion and cross-references (and with approval of the WG 
chairs), I have combined 2141bis and 3406bis into a single document that 
covers both URN syntax and URN namespaces.

Naturally, there are still some open issues being discussed on the list. 
I cannot promise that the revised I-D closes them all, but I think it 
brings us much closer to having a specification we can live with.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

---

From: Juha Hakala <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:57:55 +0200

Hello Peter,

The latest I-D is a significant step forward. Combining 2141bis and 
3046bis is a good decision, since these documents complement one another 
well.

I approve the changes made to the I-D, but I have one question / 
suggestion.

Semantics of p-, q- and f-components are not specified in the 2141bis, 
which is OK. But when you then mention additional specifications which 
might establish these matters, do you mean specifications by IETF or by 
some other (standardization) organizations which have registered or will 
register URN namespaces for their identifier systems, or both?

As far as I am concerned, the most convenient model would be one where 
3rd parties may also provide guidelines on how these components may / 
should be used for their (standard) identifiers. For instance, ISO TC 
46/SC 9 could produce such guidelines for ISO bibliographic identifier 
systems.

This would be easy for p (never allowed) and f components (allowed in 
some ISO identifiers, forbidden or not applicable in some others), but q 
component is more complicated, if ISO makes a decision to use it (to 
start with) for specification of resolution related services and service 
parameters. Such document could / should be used in other namespaces 
(like urn:nbn) and perhaps by other persistent identifiers as well, in 
order to improve interoperability between PID systems.

Juha

On 21.10.2014 21:42, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> 1. Because of his significant contributions to the concepts and text, 
> I have added John Klensin as co-author.
>
> 2. To reduce confusion and cross-references (and with approval of the 
> WG chairs), I have combined 2141bis and 3406bis into a single document 
> that covers both URN syntax and URN namespaces.
>
> Naturally, there are still some open issues being discussed on the 
> list. I cannot promise that the revised I-D closes them all, but I 
> think it brings us much closer to having a specification we can live 
> with.
>
> Peter
>

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor

  The National Library of Finland
  Library Network Services
  P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
  FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Tel. +358 9 191 44293
  Mobile +358 50 3827678

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:14:48 -0400

--On Monday, 27 October, 2014 12:57 +0200 Juha Hakala
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Semantics of p-, q- and f-components are not specified in the
> 2141bis, which is OK. But when you then mention additional
> specifications which might establish these matters, do you
> mean specifications by IETF or by some other (standardization)
> organizations which have registered or will register URN
> namespaces for their identifier systems, or both?

Personal opinion, since I haven't discussed this with Peter or
many others yet:  "yes. both".  This is very much something the
WG needs to discuss, but my hope is that recognized SDOs should
basically be able to do what they like, as long as

(1) It conforms to the basic syntax rules
(2) It is described clearly and in a way and place that provides
stability.
((3) It is registered to provide contacts and pointers to
document in a coordinated way and to avoid conflicting names.

> As far as I am concerned, the most convenient model would be
> one where 3rd parties may also provide guidelines on how these
> components may / should be used for their (standard)
> identifiers. For instance, ISO TC 46/SC 9 could produce such
> guidelines for ISO bibliographic identifier systems.

Yes, exactly.

> This would be easy for p (never allowed) and f components
> (allowed in some ISO identifiers, forbidden or not applicable
> in some others), but q component is more complicated, if ISO
> makes a decision to use it (to start with) for specification
> of resolution related services and service parameters. Such
> document could / should be used in other namespaces (like
> urn:nbn) and perhaps by other persistent identifiers as well,
> in order to improve interoperability between PID systems.

Assuming you are describing a set of rules that TC 46 / SC 9
might adopt for URNs based on its already-standardized
identifier types and make available for reference and voluntary
adoption by others, that seems completely reasonable to me.

best,
   john