[urn] Re: General grumble about incorporating other identifi ers into URNs

--On Tuesday, March 10, 2026 14:27 -0400 "Dale R. Worley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> John C Klensin <[email protected]> writes:
>> All of that said, I completely agree with you about revisions/
>> updates to existing registrations.   I'm less sure about
>> "previously-existing identifier systems" because I am not sure I
>> know how to define that precisely enough.  I also wonder whether
>> there is another distinction between what might be thought of as
>> ordinary updates and updates that are conditioned on standards (or
>> equivalent) managed elsewhere, for which ISBN is an example.
> 
> You bring up furthr considerations which I haven't thought about.
> The point I was trying to make is that people tend to reflexively
> think that because e.g. ISBNs are standardized somewhere, they can
> define a URN with syntax containing <put ISBN here> without having
> to carefully discern what that means.

Indeed.  But I think it is all part of the same picture.
   john



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