Subject: (resend) Idea: URL-based URN space

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:44:57 -0700

This is an old idea, but I thought it might bear reviving.

Some people are using URLs for what they intend to be 'permanent'
names, even though there is no guarantee of persistence.
Some people are trying to register URN namespaces because there is
no existing namespace over which they have control, or they feel
that the informal namespaces in RFC 2611 don't give them intuitive
names.

I propose a URN namespace based on URLs, but made persistent by the
addition of a date.

I would propose calling this namespace 'dated-url' (possibly 'durl'
or 'url'). These URNs would take the form

     urn:dated-url:<date>:<url>

where <date> was a string representing the date with arbitrary
precision (following RFC 2550). The largest granularity of a date
is a year.

One is empowered to assign a dated-url URN with a date of <date>
and a URL <url> only if one had administrative control of the
resource located by that URL at that given date/time.  This
simple rule prevents silly dates, recursion, dates in the future, etc.,
but allows for arbitrary assignment of URNs.

  For example, I could use
     urn:dated-url:1999:http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
  or
     urn:dated-url:200008:http://larry.masinter.net/

Unlike the 'informal' namespace, no registration is required.
As long as people follow the rules, conflicts will be impossible.
(And if people don't follow the rules, no system can prevent
conflicts).

This gives another answer to those who want a URN and don't
want to guarantee persistent URLs.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

---

From: "Martin J. Duerst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:14:06 +0900

Hello Larry,

This looks like an interesting idea.

A few comments below:

At 00/09/26 13:44 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>resource located by that URL at that given date/time.

Shouldn't that say something like 'during that given time'?
E.g. for the 1999 example below, it would mean during all
of 1999.

>This

Could you say something about resolution, too?

Regards,  Martin.