[urn] Re: Registration for the TEI: URN identifier

On 3/12/26 9:58 AM, Olle E Johansson wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12 Mar 2026, at 16:41, Dale R. Worley <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip/>

>> However, looking this over, it seems to me that in reality, TEIs aren't
>> so much *names* as *locators*; nobody really cares about the TEI for an
>> object if the corresponding servers aren't accessible (at least in the
>> future).  That suggests that TEI be promoted from a URN namespace to its
>> own scheme and stated to be a URL.  So instead of
>>
>>     urn:tei:<type>:<domain-name>:<unique-identifier>
>>
>> write
>>
>>     tei://<domain-name>/<type>/<unique-identifier>
>>
>> That would eliminate all of the philosophical problems.  The scheme
>> "tei" hasn't been registered.  The procesdures for registering a scheme
>> name are in sec. 7.2 of RFC 7595 and don't look much more onerous than
>> registering a URN namespace.
> 
> Let’s put domain ownershop aside. We went through the long route and
> tried various resolutions using DNS records but there was no support in libraries
> and even CURL refused to implement the needed records. If a TEI: scheme instead
> of a URN name space makes more sense we can certainly do that. The reason
> to select URN when we started was that this was supposed to be an identifier
> separated from the location, but I guess we had to move ourself towards
> location…
> 
> Tecnichally where we are, maybe a URL scheme makes more sense.

I concur that defining a URI scheme is probably a better direction.

Peter


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