Subject: Re: request for assignment of informal urn

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:41:59 -0500

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]> writes:
> 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 don't see any truly good solutions to the requirements.  Of course,
the advice about participation is important.

But in this case, while perhaps path-components will be added to ISBN, I
doubt they'll be added to UUID.  Which leaves the authors with no good
way to represent what they want to represent.  It seems like the best
solution is to create an informal namespace now and then, some years
from now, when the problem space is better understood and we have
improved how URNs work, they can revisit and update their namespace(s)
and syntax.

As for fragment-components, my advice would be to omit them from the
namespace definition and then use them in practice.  This is because we
can predict what the syntax for fragment-components used with URNs will
be, so there's no danger that the non-standard usage will contradict
URNbis when it comes out.  So why delay getting this namespace into real
use?

Dale

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:47:40 +0900

Dale and Peter,

We are wondering whether we should revise our registration proposal or
we should assume that our proposal was already turned down.
Your advice is greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
Yoshiki Sameshima