Duane Nickull wrote:
> Is this an "instead of" or an "in addition to" change.
>
> Duane
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt commented on regrep-rs-3.0-draft-01.pdf section 5.1.2 where it
>> says "The id MUST be a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) and MUST
>> conform to the format of a URN that specifies a DCE 128 bit UUID as
>> specified in [UUID]" as follows:
>>
>> "There are certain situations where it may be necessary for a
>> registry to specify an ID That is not dce 128. For example, in
>> Adobe's implementation, all user information comes from our Policy
>> Server, and it has its own IDs. we use a namespace to indicate this,
>> e.g. urn:aps:node:87787887878787. This section should be lenient to
>> this."
>>
>> I have long felt that we should relax the id attribute to allow any
>> URN and require that the registry check for uniqueness within the
>> local registry during submission. In a federated situation the local
>> id is implictly qualified by the home attribute value for the home
>> registry so that would allow global uniqueness.
>>
>> Does anyone object to the change that allows RegistryObject.id to be
>> any URN value that is unique within the local registry? If so please
>> indicate your reasons clearly and indicate whether you could live
>> with this change if others felt it was needed. Thanks.
>>
>
The existing urn:uuid is already a URN. The change will allow urn:uuid
URNs as well as any other valid URN to be used as id value of a
RegistryObject as long as the value is unique within the registry. Note
that registry assigned id would still be required to be urn:uuid URNs
under the proposal.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
