Re: [art] URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice

Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 7 Jan 2020 19:18:31 -0500

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:49 PM Christian <cdel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    picking up as a post modern fag end... 

    On 07/01/2020 19:53, Phillip
      Hallam-Baker wrote:

            Resolution
              of many types of name is inherently ambiguous because the
              context varies.. We cannot resolve a barcode on a physical
              object like a can of beans. But we can ask for information
              on the can of beans and we can order an instance of the
              can of beans for delivery. And both forms of 'location'
              are going to be subjective and depend on the context in
              which they are attempted.

    I suppose the question is can a schema capture both identifier
      and locator contexts (my plural) unambiguously in all cases?
Definitely not because the identifier interpretation can change over time. Additional contexts can be added. The identifier may be grandfathered into a new scheme. It may be abandoned.

    Should I take your post modernist interpretation as saying the
      answer is no - we have to live with ambiguity, even to the extent
      of the failure to resolve one or other or possibly both and do so
      without breaking wind?
We can deny that the ambiguity exists. We can say the earth is flat as well. But it won't change anything. 

    But given this interpretation what language is needed if URI and
      URN linguistically don't meet the need?  

    Or is the other interpretation to offer a list of contexts that
      work and exclude application for the others? 

    In which case which is the more useful approach for building real
      world apps and their networks? 
I believe that the Internet was founded on the principle of allowing every user to experiment and to extend. It is thus impossible to enumerate all possible uses. It is however possible to identify uses that are useful generally and network effects strongly (unfortunately too strongly) encourage focusing on common uses.

    It rather kills the idea of hard coded registries for all
      eventualities I think. That I like. As I really like the import of
      post modernist sensibility. This argument is worth something. 

    best Christian