Subject: Re: Re: request for assignment of informal urn

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:37:20 -0500

<[email-masked]> writes:
> As a result, our urn is a form of UUID/ISBN + FILENAME + EPUBCFI.

For some reason, I overlooked the FILENAME component.  That's a mistake
on my part.

But it means that we can't look at these as simply "UUID/ISBN plus
fragment identifier (EPUBCFI)".

An alternative syntax would be if the FILENAME information could be
included in the EPUBCFI.  But I expect that you've verfied that there is
no good way to do that.

I can see why you'd need a new namespace, because you need the
additional FILENAME information in the URN proper.

Dale

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:18:23 -0700

> additional FILENAME information in the URN proper.

But fragment identifiers are disallowed by RFC 2141. This registration 
can't go forward until the URNBIS work completes. At which point, I 
think it would be better to define real namespaces (e.g., it's likely 
that the ISBN namespace will be updated to allow f-components) instead 
of forcing it into an informal namespace.

I STRONGLY encourage the authors of this registration to read the latest 
URNBIS document and provide feedback on the [email-masked] list:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/

Coordination with Juha Hakala about the ISBN namespace would also be 
very beneficial.

Peter

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