On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Anand Patil wrote:
Of course this is subject to OGF applying for and getting the top level urn:ogf from IANA. We have successfully got urn:geant for the our community [id 31; RFC4926]
Thanks for the pointer!
If there is consensus that we indeed should use URNs for identifiers, The way forward, it seems is: 1. Decide if we really like to use URNs. (If not, the OGF can still ask for delegation of urn:ogf, but I probably am less inclined to give it much effort). 2. Ask the OGF standardisation area director for his opinion (Chris Smith and David Snelling) and/or infrastructure area directors ( 3. Involve the OGF liaison to the IETF (Cees de Laat) 4. Get people to write an Internet draft and/or OGF document describing its use). I'm willing to contribute, but only if we decide on using URNs.
So first things first: - Do we want to use URNs (e.g. urn:ogf:network or urn:ogf:nml) for identifiers of the classes we define? - If not, do we want to use URIs as identifier? - If not, are there other potential identifiers to use?
Note: I'm explicitly talking about the identifiers of the classes (e.g. "network", "layer"), not about identifiers for instances.
So far, we have a small "yes" from me, and a large "yes" from Anand. Martin, Jeroen, Aaron, John, Victor, others: what do you think?
For the class definitions themselves, I think it makes sense to use URIs a la namespaces so we could put some documentation at the specified URL. For the identifiers for individual instances, I think the URNs make more sense since it doesn't imply a specific method of access to get information about the element.
2. If we get a YES for OGF applying for urn:ogf, then the question is what do we do meanwhile. 2a. Use URN under the assumption that OGF will eventually get it
My preference. I don't think our schema will be finished much earlier than the delegation, so I rather not add an additional transition. I don't have reason to suspect that the delegation request will fail.
*concurs* Cheers, Aaron