[urn] Re: Proposal: urn:local: namespace for context-s coped identifiers

Graham Klyne <[email protected]> writes:
> Agreeing with the other responses, I note that there exists a URI scheme that 
> has local(ish) semantics, viz file:.
> [...]
>     A file URL takes the form:
>
>         file://<host>/<path>
>
>     where <host> is the fully qualified domain name of the system on
>     which the <path> is accessible, and <path> is a hierarchical
>     directory path of the form <directory>/<directory>/.../<name>.
> [...]
> (and similar in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8089#section-2)

IIUC, this mean that the minter of a "local identifier" needs to be (or
coordinate with) the owner of a domain name, preferably one that is not
assigned to an existing host.  Then they can create file: URIs using
that domain name as a host name, and whatever path parts they want (that
conform to the syntax).

I would seem best if the domain name isn't the name of a host, so that
it cannot be misunderstood to identify a file.  So I might create URIs
like

    file://unique-1234.local.ariadne.com/resource/1

since I own ariadne.com and there will never be a host
"unique-1234.local.ariadne.com".

Though the semantics are somewhat deviant, in that presumably I am using
the URI to identify *something*, that something isn't a file.

At this point, I don't think that file: URIs provide any more
convenience than cid: URIs but the deviation from the pre-existing
semantics is greater than for cid: URIs.

Dale

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