Thats fair. It just seems silly that a spec intended to "uniquely ID a package" supports a type that is the complete opposite of "unique". I guess another way t

Thats fair. It just seems silly that a spec intended to "uniquely ID a package" supports a type that is the complete opposite of "unique". I guess another way to frame my take is should `generic` be consider a valid PURL? Keep it as a fall back sure, but distinguish between "fully qualified" PURLs and "partial" PURLs. This then gives tooling a path to prompt users to provide missing context needed to fully qualify the PURL