Re: URNs approved by Karl

[Tony Coates <Tony.Coates@reuters.com>]

On 01/05/2001 16:22:42 Paul Grosso wrote:

>What about versioning?  If we want to represent versioning
>in the namespace name, we might want to add a ":1.0" field
>to the end of both names.  (I'm not sure how I feel about
>this, but it seemed worth mentioning.)

Well, we have more than our fair share of URN NID authors on this TC; my point
of view is that we should include the version in the URNs.  URNs are meant to be
persistent names, and while I don't know of any clear guideance on whether
versions of resources should have individual persistent names, I would take the
position that they should.  After all, shouldn't a 1.0 application in a 1.1 or
2.0 era have the right require 1.0 catalogues, and to recognise these from their
URNs?

     Cheers,
          Tony.
========
Anthony B. Coates
Leader of XML Architecture & Design
Chief Technology Office
Reuters Plc, London.
tony.coates@reuters.com
========


-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.