[urn] Re: Application: URN Namespace Identifier: nfi

Great. Let's give the other team members a chance to review. If we don't 
hear from them by the end of next week, we'll move forward with the 
registration.

On 8/1/25 2:25 AM, Peter Waher wrote:
> Hello Peter
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, and the edits. I accepted and transferred them 
> all into the original documents. I also found an additional reference 
> that I removed, replacing it with a text reference, and changed the date 
> to today's date. I generated a new PDF to match the edits as well.
> 
> Best regards,
> Peter Waher
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Från:* Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
> *Skickat:* Torsdag, 31 juli 2025 18:31
> *Till:* Peter Waher <[email protected]>; Dale R. Worley 
> <[email protected]>
> *Kopia:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
> *Ämne:* Re: [urn] Re: Application: URN Namespace Identifier: nfi
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Here is more feedback. You can also find my suggestions here:
> 
> https://github.com/stpeter/urn-namespaces/pull/1 <https://github.com/ 
> stpeter/urn-namespaces/pull/1>
> 
> The version number should be "1". (It is the version of the namespace
> itself, not of the document or template registering this version.)
> 
> I don't think we need the citations (e.g. to various RFCs) because we
> don't usually include those in the completed templates published here:
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml>
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 7/31/25 6:10 AM, Peter Waher wrote:
>  > Hello Dale
>  >
>  > Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed all the issues as you
>  > recommended. Please find the revised application attached (version 3).
>  >
>  > Best regards,
>  > Peter Waher
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > *Från:* Dale R. Worley <[email protected]>
>  > *Skickat:* Torsdag, 31 juli 2025 03:27
>  > *Till:* Peter Waher <[email protected]>
>  > *Kopia:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
>  > *Ämne:* Re: [urn] Application: URN Namespace Identifier: nfi
>  >
>  > Reviewing this application:
>  >
>  >      Namespace Identifier (formal)
>  >
>  >         nfi
>  >
>  >      Version
>  >
>  >         2
>  >
>  > I am noting here that I am reviewing the "nfi" version.
>  >
>  >         Contact Person:
>  >
>  >            Peter Waher
>  >            email: [email protected]
>  >            email: [email protected]
>  >            xmpp: [email protected]
>  >
>  > It's desirable for the contact address to be given as a "role e-mail
>  > address" rather than an individual's address.
>  >
>  >      Syntax
>  >
>  >         Using the format defined in RFC 3986 [5], and some of its base
>  >         classes, a formal definition of the syntax used for urn URIs
>  >         used together with the nfi Namespace Identifier is as follows:
>  >
>  >               nfi-uri      = "urn:nfi:" category ":" subcat : version
>  >               category     = name
>  >               subcat       = 1*( ":" name )
>  >               name         = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded )
>  >               version      = 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
>  >
>  > I note that "urn:nfi:iot:ctr:1.0" and "urn:nfi:iot:ctr:1.0:1.0" both
>  > conform to this syntax, though you probably don't want allocate the
>  > second one.  In practice, I think you want to restrict "name" to start
>  > with an ALPHA so that any "name" part is imediately distingushable
>  > from the "version" part by the human reader.  It also allows the
>  > possiblity of the future use of omitting the version part.
>  >
>  >               name         = ALPHA *( unreserved / pct-encoded )
>  >
>  >      Resolution
>  >
>  >         There is no resolution mechanism anticipated for use with the
>  >         nfi namespace identifier.
>  >
>  >      Documentation
>  >
>  >         The Neuro-Foundation interfaces are documented publicly in [1].
>  >
>  > The "Resolution" section is correct within the meaning of RFC 8141,
>  > but for practical purposes, I would recommend pointing people to the
>  > mapping between the URNs and the definition of the interfaces they
>  > identify as a "resolution" process:
>  >
>  >      Resolution
>  >
>  >         There is no resolution mechanism anticipated for use with the
>  >         nfi namespace identifier.  However, each URN identifies an
>  >         interface as described by the Documentation.
>  >
>  > --
>  >
>  >         [5] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding and L. Masinter, "Uniform 
> Resource
>  >             Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax," 01 2005. [Online].
>  >             Available: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 <https:// 
> tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986> <https://
>  > tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986>.
>  >             [Accessed 03 07 2015].
>  >
>  > If you provide a reference for RFC 3986, I would recommend adding a
>  > reference to RFC 8141, even though strictly speaking, the registration
>  > doesn't reference it:
>  >
>  >        [6] "Uniform Resource Names (URNs)," [Online].
>  >            Available: http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc8141.html <http:// 
> xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc8141.html> <http://
>  > xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc8141.html>.
>  >
>  > Dale
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > urn mailing list -- [email protected]
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> 

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]