Subject: re general solution for URNs for XML

From: Terry Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:26:02 -0700

I have been dismayed by the reaction to Norm's well intended
proposal for a NID.  I would like everyone who sees policy
problems with it to write up the policy issues involved, so
that 1) future applicants can be forewarned of the attitudes
of subscribers to this list, 2) we can ensure that all
applications are tested against the same policy issues, and 3)
we can keep track of just what the arguments are so they don't
morph over time.

In short, let's have no more ad hoc objections.

As for Leslie's desire for a more general solution for
Norm's need for URNs, there are two considerations.

 - There is no particular reason to think that URNs for
        XML instances, DTDs, or schemas should be assigned
        in the same name space.  And indeed, the cat is
        already out of the bag:  Microsoft's Biztalk uses
        URNs, and Commerce One is using (experimental) URNs;
        there will be a tidal wave of new URNs washing ashore
        shortly.  I cannot see that forcing these all to be
        experimental improves service one whit.

 - The institutions that are plausible candidates for supplying
        such a name space are ISO, the W3C, and OASIS.

        - ISO specified FPIs (the unique IDs we used to use for
        SGML, which were ruled out by the W3C in favor of URIs)
        in ISO 8879 et seq., but never did anything to establish
        a registry of them.  Eventually it granted the GCA
        (Graphic Communications Asso.) license to act as US
        registrar, but the GCA never did anything useful with
        that power.  The GCA is also a dubiously competent
        organization with murky governance.

        - The W3C created the requirement that URIs be used as
        PUBLIC identifiers in XML instances, but has not
        developed a name space for URNs for XML.  I understand
        the W3C to have attitude problems with URNs, so I don't
        expect anything on this front.  The W3C is also an
        organization with serious governance problems.

        - OASIS is well known to be unreliable in its technical
        services.  It too has serious governance problems, some
        of which may be in the course of rectification.  But
        the technical work that OASIS does (and well) is done
        by volunteers - such as Norm - and OASIS would have to
        rely on volunteers to keep a URN name space running.
        Failure to keep it running would have critical impacts
        on many users of the name space.  Nobody I know would
        trust the job to OASIS.

So Norm is left without a choice of name space to use a piece of.
He is not acting from vanity, and it is incidental that he is
acting as an individual (individuals do the work for organizations,
and Norm would not be more reliable if he worked for an organization;
he's very reliable as it is).  There may be technical objections
to his I-D that require revision, but blocking his application
is only going to bring this group into disrepute and leave the
rest of use to conclude that there is no point in requesting
formal or informal NIDs - we might as well just use experimental
ones.  Is that what we want?

regards, Terry Allen