Talk:Uniform Resource Name

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] urn:sha1:...

This is entirely made up, isn't it? sha1 does not appear in the IANA's NID registry. -- JTN 20:02, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Indeed. You could use urn:x-sha1 instead. As RFC 2611 says:

      I.   Experimental: These are not explicitly registered with IANA.
           They take the form

                                      X-<NID>

           No provision is made for avoiding collision of experimental
           NIDs; they are intended for use within internal or limited
           experimental contexts.

           As there is no registration, no registration maintenance
           procedures are needed.

But urn:sha1:<base32 string> is fairly widely used despite being unregistered.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.103.206.55 (talk) Jun 23 2005 17:15 (UTC)

[edit] Difference from DOIs

It would be great if the article could discuss the difference between DOIs and URNs, since at first glance they seem to do much the same thing. —Psychonaut 02:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usefulness

This article should explain why URN's are useful. I mean, what good is it to know that the URN of a book is urn:isbn:0451450523? How is the knowledge of this book's URN beneficial to anyone? —Ksn 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic?

I do not understand that: "An editor has expressed a concern that the topic of this article may be unencyclopedic." I looked up URN to learn what a URN is, in the clear expectation that this would be in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia). Fortunately, it is here. Could you be more precise or specific about the concern? For example, do you think that the article falls into one of the "Wikipedia is not ..." items? I went through the list and did not see any. Tell me, so I can defend the article. Yours truly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olevv (talk • contribs) 2006-09-07T10:16:41

[edit] Clearly spoken

I was quite positively surprised to find an explanation in almost direct speech. I could immediately understand it. There was an objection that the article was not written in encyclopedic style. In the classical meaning of the term I have to admit that it is quite deliberately written. However my expectations are to understand and, if ever, to learn about the topic I'm looking up. And they are fully met. In this sense for me the article is more than ok. For heaven's sake, please leave it like this ,-) Thanks for the good article and basic introduction! — Keyanoo 08:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good objection! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.78 (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unofficial / invalid

This is about section entitled Non-standard usage

Previous version said

The following are examples for non-standard URNs, i.e. identifiers that look like URNs but don't use a valid namespaces and thus are invalid URNs.

User:Gerbrant's version said:

The following are examples for non-standard URNs, i.e. identifiers that don't use officially registered namespaces and thus are unofficial URNs. <!--Note: original wording was "invalid" rather than "unofficial". I changed it because "invalid" carries the connotation "will not work". However, most software will either happily accept any scheme, or only accept a select few, regardless of registration.--!>

My version says;

The following are examples for non-standard URNs, i.e. identifiers that don't use officially registered namespaces and thus are invalid URNs in terms of RFC 2141 (URN Syntax) and RFC 3406 (Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms).'

I agree they are not invalid in the sense they work with lenient or specifically designed software. However, the current URN syntax specification does not allow some characters (such as '.'); and does not conform Namespace Definition Mechanisms. I tried to state this fact, while avoiding imply they simply "won't work".

In addition, I found the text "... don't use officially registered namespaces and thus are unofficial ..." a bit redundant.

Rjgodoy 11:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard and no-standard, where the authority?

Examples sections say that SICI is not standard. And DOI or PURL, they are standard URN? Where the authority to say this?? W3C?

There are no authority for this?? Where the oficial resolver servers?? IANA not have a resolver and stopted to select by relevance and registry... The and the "IETF URN Working Group" not exist yet!


Some clues (no authority status):


Btw, I have removed the link to this talk page. Feel free to include a cleanup template WP:TC if you consider it appropriate. Rjgodoy (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some notes:

  • The IANA registry of URN namespaces [1] IS the official one, per RFC 3406.
  • According to this, URIs are not standard or non-standard but registered or unregistered. Indeed, "the Formal NID application is made via publication of an RFC through standard IETF processes. The RFC need not be standards-track (...)" (Section 4.3 of RFC 3406).
  • PURLs are not URN (either registered or unregistered), understanding URN as an identifier within the urn: URI namespace. Instead, they are http: URLs, and are resolved by means of HTTP redirection.

"There is nothing incompatible between PURLs and (...) URN. PURLs satisfy many of the requirements of URNs using currently deployed technologies and can be transitioned smoothly into a URN architecture once it is deployed [2].

  • SICI and DOI are not URNs by themselves (particularly doi: is neither a registered URN nor a registered URI). However, both may be represented as URIs (not URNs) under the info: scheme. info: is defined in RFC 4522. Namespaces within the info: schemes are registered by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) [3].

Rjgodoy (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)