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

On 11 March 2026 17:43 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 3/9/26 5:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

>> And that brings me to the next question: do you think whatever needs 
>> to be done can be done informally, maybe with a note on the registry, 
>> or do we need to rethink/rework parts of 8141?  Peter and others on 
>> the Expert team?

> Personally, I don't yet have clear ideas on what needs to be done, but it's
> worth thinking about. Dale mentioned extra vigilance, and that's a good place to start.

>From what I've seen in the discussion about ISBN so far, one crucial aspect seems to be lexical equivalence. Another is the syntax definition that has to be narrow enough to enable reasonable syntax validation, but also broad enough to cater for (possible) future expansion. And also if there are characters in the "other identifier" that carry no semantics, such as '-' in ISBN and ISSN.

> One straightforward consideration that comes to mind is making sure that
> the registrants for these "incorporating URN namespaces" have coordinated
> with those who originally defined the identifier systems to be incorporated
> (as I did when quizzing Olle as to whether he and other TC54 participants had
> talked with the LEI folks).

Yes! Maybe we should add that to §6.3 as a prerequisite.

> Another consideration is understanding both change control and the assignment
> process for the underlying identifier systems. [...]

This one I find trickier. Do we need to require that registrants supply information about that in the registration form or would it be enough that those procedures are well visible in the "further documentation"?

Best,

Lars

_______________________________________________
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]