[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Aaron Brown]

On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> Anand Patil wrote:
>
>> Of course this is subject to
>> OGF applying for and getting the top level urn:ogf from IANA. We have
>> successfully got urn:geant for the our community [id 31; RFC4926]
>
> Thanks for the pointer!
>
> If there is consensus that we indeed should use URNs for identifiers,
> The way forward, it seems is:
> 1. Decide if we really like to use URNs. (If not, the OGF can still  
> ask
> for delegation of urn:ogf, but I probably am less inclined to give it
> much effort).
> 2. Ask the OGF standardisation area director for his opinion (Chris
> Smith and David Snelling) and/or infrastructure area directors (
> 3. Involve the OGF liaison to the IETF (Cees de Laat)
> 4. Get people to write an Internet draft and/or OGF document  
> describing
> its use). I'm willing to contribute, but only if we decide on using  
> URNs.
>
> So first things first:
> - Do we want to use URNs (e.g. urn:ogf:network or urn:ogf:nml) for
> identifiers of the classes we define?
> - If not, do we want to use URIs as identifier?
> - If not, are there other potential identifiers to use?
>
> Note: I'm explicitly talking about the identifiers of the classes  
> (e.g.
> "network", "layer"), not about identifiers for instances.
>
> So far, we have a small "yes" from me, and a large "yes" from Anand.
> Martin, Jeroen, Aaron, John, Victor, others: what do you think?

For the class definitions themselves, I think it makes sense to use  
URIs a la namespaces so we could put some documentation at the  
specified URL. For the identifiers for individual instances, I think  
the URNs make more sense since it doesn't imply a specific method of  
access to get information about the element.

>> 2. If we get a YES for OGF applying for urn:ogf, then the question is
>> what do we do meanwhile.
>> 2a. Use URN under the assumption that OGF will eventually get it
>
> My preference. I don't think our schema will be finished much earlier
> than the delegation, so I rather not add an additional transition. I
> don't have reason to suspect that the delegation request will fail.

*concurs*

Cheers,
Aaron