On 06/04/2011 12:34, Erik Sundvall wrote: > > Now since metadata is going to be well defined inside the file, the
it is not well enough defined yet, but it could be. We would need to do some work on that to define the exact rules. > need for semantics in identifiers or file names is gone so the main > thing left is that we want a _unique_ string. URIs are supposed to be > unique. > > Some URI-examples: > urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6 > urn:oid:1.3.6.1.2.1.27 > urn:lsid:chemacx.cambridgesoft.com:ACX:CAS967582:1 > http://id.skl.se/openEHR/EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1 > http://schema.openehr.org/openEHR/EHR/EVALUATION/problem/v3 > urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-38012 There are two ways to see this. We could say that, assuming archetypes become quite widespread in IT in general, that anything should be allowed, just make it a URI formatted id. However, for major domains like health, I don't know if this helps, I think we need better standards than that. It would be a bit like saying to SNOMED national release centres: go make your own concept ids, you don't need to follow IHTSDO rules, only a meta-rule that says: don't take an id that has already been used. I think that the URI/IRI/etc argument is a different dimension from the content of the ID. URIs et al are about technical accessibility within a notionally online info-fabric. But specific communities are still going to want to control their spaces- e.g. I don't think we will see ISBNs die out any time soon. - thomas
