headers
IESG Secretary | 1 Nov 2010 22:11
Picon
Favicon

WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area.  The
IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft charter
was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please
send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg <at> ietf.org) by Tuesday,
November 9, 2010                           

Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis) 
--------------------------------
Last Modified:  2010-10-28
Current Status: Proposed Working Group

  Chair(s):
    o   TBD

  Applications Area Director(s):
    o   Alexey Melnikov  <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
    o   Peter Saint-Andre  <stpeter at stpeter.im>

  Applications Area Advisor:
    o   Alexey Melnikov  <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>

  Mailing Lists:
    o  General Discussion: urn <at> ietf.org
       To Subscribe:
         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
       Archive:
         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Renato Iannella | 5 Nov 2010 01:38
Favicon

Re: WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)


Hi all - I've just (re-)joined the URN group and very supportive of the new Charter.

Having seen the Linked Data movement grow significantly in the Semantic Web world, the need for
longer-term stable names will take on greater relevance now....

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Renato Iannella | 5 Nov 2010 09:26
Favicon

Re: WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

Also...I think the Charter needs to make a strong statement on Web Browser support for URNs.

Without this, I think we face un uphill battle...

We need to "reach out" to the Web Browser vendors with clear mechanisms to resolve URNs.

(I should have added that I was one of the Authors of RFC 3406)

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Alfred Hönes | 5 Nov 2010 12:08
Picon

Re: WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

Renato,
thanks for your notes and your support.

> Also...I think the Charter needs to make a strong statement on
> Web Browser support for URNs.
>
> Without this, I think we face an uphill battle...

Well, to get the effort started, we had to adopt to various concerns.
The best way to reach a goal frequently is dividing the path you have
in mind into steps and take on the logically first steps temporally
before the dependent ones.  In the BOF, we saw rough consensus on
including a revision of RFC 2483 in the initial targets, because it has
been shown that the list of URN Services defined there (and declared as
complete and universally applicable to all URN namespaces) in practice
has proven unrealistical and insufficient in the (roughly) decade of
increasing usage of URNs.  Larry Masinter has given a sketch and
analysis in his "musings" of why the one-size-fits-all attempt to tie
URN resolution exclusively to a DNS-based DDDS mechanism has not got
any traction in practice.  This certainly deserves further analysis
and work on conclusions.

The idea therefore was to start work on a six-pack of documents,
including URN resolution services at the *abstract* level, and to
informally explore the URN resolution *mechanisms* in actual use
today and the detailed requirements during that phase, so that we
then could attempt to re-charter with a sound concept of the next
steps and concrete milestones regarding resolution mechanisms.

However, the rfc2483bis goal description and milestones have been
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Maurizio Lunghi | 5 Nov 2010 15:17
Picon
Favicon

R: WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

Hello Renato,
please to meet you, actually in the Europeana WP3 group there is a big mess and debate about LOD and URN in the
last days.
They invited me to participate the workgroup as expert on PI and I made a position paper presenting
different approaches and features for technologies like URI and URN in the current scenario and
introduced the PersID objectives, but probably somebody more influent then me ;-) pushed for LOD. So I
recommended to take in right consideration current practices of URN technics even if they use URI for
internal references .....

This week I was too busy, but next week I will contribute to the debate within Europeana forum ....

Best,

Maurizio Lunghi
direttore scientifico
Fondazione Rinascimento Digitale
lunghi <at> rinascimento-digitale.it 
+393351396371

P Rispetta l'ambiente: se non ti è necessario, non stampare questa mail!!!

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: urn-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:urn-bounces <at> ietf.org] Per conto di Renato Iannella
Inviato: venerdì 5 novembre 2010 01:42
A: urn <at> ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [urn] WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

Hi all - I've just (re-)joined the URN group and very supportive of the new Charter.

Having seen the Linked Data movement grow significantly in the Semantic Web world, the need for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Renato Iannella | 7 Nov 2010 12:54
Favicon

Re: WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)


On 5 Nov 2010, at 21:08, Alfred HÎnes wrote:

> The URN Services document will take over the role of a requirements
> document for concrete URN Resolution mechanism specifications, and
> unlike observed in other WGs, I insist on getting the requirements
> document done before the protocol work, and not to retrofit the
> requirements after the fact.  :-)

I fully agree - this is important - get the requirements right that reflect real-world usages and scenarios.

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Maurizio Lunghi | 12 Nov 2010 17:37
Picon
Favicon

R: R: WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

Dear Renato, all,
hereby my position paper I produced for Europeana, is it ok in this pdf format?

There is a big debate in the last week within Europeana about 'persistent identifiers' for physical
objects and even if they decided to go for LoD actually most of the features are more suitable for URNs
applications like NBN ... we'll see what end they reach ...

Best,

Maurizio Lunghi
direttore scientifico
Fondazione Rinascimento Digitale
lunghi <at> rinascimento-digitale.it 
+393351396371

P Rispetta l'ambiente: se non ti è necessario, non stampare questa mail!!!

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: urn-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:urn-bounces <at> ietf.org] Per conto di Maurizio Lunghi
Inviato: venerdì 5 novembre 2010 15:19
A: Renato Iannella; urn <at> ietf.org
Oggetto: [urn] R: WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

Hello Renato,
please to meet you, actually in the Europeana WP3 group there is a big mess and debate about LOD and URN in the
last days.
They invited me to participate the workgroup as expert on PI and I made a position paper presenting
different approaches and features for technologies like URI and URN in the current scenario and
introduced the PersID objectives, but probably somebody more influent then me ;-) pushed for LOD. So I
recommended to take in right consideration current practices of URN technics even if they use URI for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alfred Hönes | 17 Nov 2010 17:50
Picon

Fate of SICI namespace ?

URN folks,

As recalled in the Introduction of draft-hakala-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
and equally in the Introduction of draft-hakala-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn,
RFC 2288 in February 1998 informally discussed the suitability
of the SICI namespace as a URN namespace, amongst ISBN and ISBN.
For the latter two bibliographic namespaces, a formal URN namespace
definition has been produced each, but not for SICI.
The aforementioned drafts, which are input for the URNBIS WG, have
indicated the intent to "Update" RFC 2288.

Working on the initial WG versions of the rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
and rfc3188bis-nbn-urn I-Ds, we revisited this point and considered
whether it would make more sense to move RFC 2288 to "Historic"
status during the planned process of approval for RFC publication
of rfc3187bis and rfc3188bis.

Please have a look at RFC 2288 (if you haven't done so recently;
it's a short RFC of only ~7 pages of text, and it's a good-to-know
background for the upcoming discussion on the ISBN and NBN namespaces
as well) and state your opinions on the list wrt the following point:

(1)  Is there any chance that an URN:SICI namespace will be defined
     and used in the foreseeable future?

If "no" for (1), ...

(2)  Would it indeed make sense to declare RFC 2288 as "Historic"
     and/or "Obsoleted" by the new namespace definitions ?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andrew Newton | 24 Nov 2010 01:37
Picon

Hello and Welcome

Congratulations to all the people who worked to bring this working group to fruition.


I am Andrew, one of the co-chairs (I usually go by and most people just call me Andy). I thought I would introduce myself since many people in the URN community do not know me. I've participated in many working groups in the IETF, and this is my third time co-chairing one. I've got a couple of RFCs under my belt, most recently in the area of VOIP and emergency services. While I will have to defer to Alfred for in-depth domain expertise, I am not unfamiliar with URNs and have even written DDDS applications and specifications. And as a bit of URNish trivia, I went to highschool with Michael Mealling, a name you will find on many of the first-round URN RFCs.

While I may be a new face to the broader URN community, I understand that some of the participants here are new to the IETF having come from other URN related standards bodies. Your participation is greatly welcomed. If you are unfamiliar with the IETF, you might want to take a few moments to read RFC 4677, The Tao of IETF. While the IETF has been formalizing its processes over the years, newcomers might want to especially note the comparatively informal process upon which working groups arrive at consensus. It may seem a little "rough and tumble" at times, but the intent is to value discussion and consensus building.

I look forward to working with all of you. And again, congratulations on the formation of this working group.

-andy
_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
urn <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alfred Hönes | 24 Nov 2010 15:58
Picon

Another welcome, and a few pointers to resources

URN[bis] folks,
as you might have noticed from the WG formation announcement,
I have been tasked by our Area Directors to share fate with
Andrew Newton in co-chairing this URNbis Working Group.

I'd like to add to the thanks already expressed by Andy to all who
contributed to the efforts to establish this working group.

We have an ambitious schedule on our charter, and I hope we get
focussed discussions soon on this list that help to achieve the
primary milestones set for the time span until the next IETF meeting
(IETF 80, Prague, last week of March 2011).  We plan to have a
face-to-face session there to close up open issues and plan for
the next steps.  I know that many of you have a tight schedule
and therefore it likely isn't too early to already fix your eyes
upon that timeline!

The first WG draft among those listed in our charter is on its way to
the archives and will be announced soon, and three more are planned
for the next 2-3 weeks, in order.

For your interest:

(1)
On the servers maintained by the IETF Tools team, we have a home page
that already contains links to most resources related to the WG, and
it will be populated soon with pointers to related Internet-Drafts.
  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/>

(2)
In addition to what Andy already said:

The "Tao of the IETF" is maintained by Paul Hoffman as an Internet-
Draft that contains the most up-to-date information.
Due to organizatorial changes, some of the URLs given in RFC 4677
have changed, and so you might prefer to access this working version.
It can be found in various formats on the IETF Tools site at
  <tools.ietf,org/html/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-10>,
and it is also available from the IETF Newcomers page,
  <http://www.ietf.org/newcomers.html>
via a link to
  <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

(3)
I stumbled over this:

   "Identification - Related Resources",
   <http://hosted.ukoln.ac.uk/biblink/wp2/links.html>

It's more than 12 years old, but still a wealth of information.
Several of the research and background documents referred to in
earlier RFCs on URIs/URNs, and information on various identifier
systems can be found there.
So this might be an interesting bookmark for legacy background
information.

Best regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

--

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah <at> TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
urn <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane