Namespaces (again!)

[Werner.Joerg@iem.com]

I have not yet received many comments to my posting "AboutNameSpaces.pdf" (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/download.php/41402/AboutNameSpaces.pdf) but I would like to move on and submit the template requests for CIQ and GSF as soon as possible.
So let me raise 2 issues relating to URN:
1) In the past we have used a format that provides a specific namespace for EDXL, e.g. urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:edxl:rm:v1.1. In the proposal I suggest that we preserve the Work Product Abbreviation, i.e. urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:edxl-ct:v1.0.
Besides this idea of consistency, is there any other argument in favor of one or the other form?
2) As noted in the document, OASIS discourages using URN for document referencing. In the light of current discussions about a lightweight process for, say Common Types, I wonder whether they could actually provide an elegant way out of a "chicken and egg" situation where we want to reference reusable components in a Standard, but the components can be put in a publicly accessible space only once they have been included in an approved Standard. Using URNs would allow to keep a persistent reference in the documents, and through successive adjustments of the URN Resolver one could ensure that URN resolution leads to a document (WD, CSD, ..) most appropriate for the maturity stage of the Standard and the component ..
Looking forward to your input,
Werner