On Nov 14, Mark McKeown modulated: ...
Is this technical issue not addressed by IETF RFC 4122, "A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace"?
Thanks, Mark, for giving me the nudge to beat this dead horse... I think it is an issue that the WS-Naming proposal _could_ easily address by mandating UUID syntax in the AbstractName (or defining a separate UUID-containing element QName that can be used in lieu of AbstractName). AbstractName has been left open to undisciplined and ambiguous use. As it stands, I fear the notion of an AbstractName without any normative or runtime-encoded reference to a naming convention, namespace, and/or naming authority is not actually useful. The UUID syntax essentially defines a namespace based on Internet names, and other approaches could also serve, such as using an "assertion" model where the name and the one issuing the name are both identified (the "EPR minter" as Frank Siebenlist has been putting it). Much to my surprise, this does not seem to be a universally held position within GGF! These basic concerns were brought up in the BoF in Seol last year, if not earlier in all of the related OGSI naming discussions. karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com