Subject: URN duri and tdb spec updated
From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, "'Harry Halpin'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:06:21 -0800
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>

((Please follow up only on [email-masked] (DO NOT REPLY ALL)))

By recent popular demand, I updated (slightly)

         http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html (and .txt and .xml)
and submitted it to the internet-drafts repository as
               
           draft-masinter-dated-uri-05.txt.

The only substantial change I made since the 2004 draft was to change the
interpretation of the date from "first instant" to "last instant", based on
a comment by Al Gilman in 2004.

Replies to recent comments:
======
Ray Denenberg asked:
> http://info-uri.info/   Have you considered 'info:' for duri and tbd?
Yes, I considered 'info:/' instead of URN namespaces. I don't think it fits
into 'info' because 'duri' and 'tdb' aren't really naming authorities in the
same way. This is more like urn:uuid:...
 
I thought about switching to plain URI schemes (without "urn:", e.g.,
uri:2008:whatever instead of urn:duri:2008:whatever), but it would be a
larger change to the draft, and require more explanation.
========
Pat Hayes wrote:
> ... the date should be optional. 

There's no point in 'duri' without a date. I think even 'tdb' needs a date
of interpretation, because even when resources are unchanging, the date of
interpretation matters. 
========
Stuart Williams wrote:
>  ..  something of a year 10K (or maybe 100K) problem 

The reference to RFC 2550 hints at how to solve that problem.
=========
Harry Halpin and Tim Kindberg wrote reviews or comments in 2004
which I responded to in email, but I didn't update the document
based on their comments and my replies.

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

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:20:09 -0800
Subject: FW: URN duri and tdb spec updated
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US

(resending)

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email-masked]]=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:06 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked] WG; [email-masked]'; 'Harry Halpin'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: URN duri and tdb spec updated

((Please follow up only on [email-masked] (DO NOT REPLY ALL)))

By recent popular demand, I updated (slightly)

         http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html (and .txt and .xml)
and submitted it to the internet-drafts repository as
              =20
           draft-masinter-dated-uri-05.txt.

The only substantial change I made since the 2004 draft was to change the i=
nterpretation of the date from "first instant" to "last instant", based on =
a comment by Al Gilman in 2004.

Replies to recent comments:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Ray Denenberg asked:
> http://info-uri.info/   Have you considered 'info:' for duri and tbd?
Yes, I considered 'info:/' instead of URN namespaces. I don't think it fits=
 into 'info' because 'duri' and 'tdb' aren't really naming authorities in t=
he same way. This is more like urn:uuid:...
=20
I thought about switching to plain URI schemes (without "urn:", e.g., uri:2=
008:whatever instead of urn:duri:2008:whatever), but it would be a larger c=
hange to the draft, and require more explanation.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Pat Hayes wrote:
> ... the date should be optional.=20

There's no point in 'duri' without a date. I think even 'tdb' needs a date =
of interpretation, because even when resources are unchanging, the date of =
interpretation matters.=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Stuart Williams wrote:
>  ..  something of a year 10K (or maybe 100K) problem=20

The reference to RFC 2550 hints at how to solve that problem.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Harry Halpin and Tim Kindberg wrote reviews or comments in 2004
which I responded to in email, but I didn't update the document
based on their comments and my replies.

Larry
--=20
http://larry.masinter.net