3 ms·

> URN's I had not heard of, but the article didn't make it clear to me what problem they would solve. It's a universal namespace, just like UUIDs, but with jus

by wtbob 12y ago

> URN's I had not heard of, but the article didn't make it clear to me what problem they would solve. It's a universal namespace, just like UUIDs, but with just enough extra sauce to make it theoretically possible to do interesting things with it. So 'urn:isbn:0451450523' might represent The Last Unicorn, and if you fed it to your Kindle it might enable you to buy it, and if you fed it into Nook ditto, and if you fed it into Project Gutenberg you might get a notice that it won't fall out of copyright until A.D. 3172, and if you fed it into your browser it might do any of those things or just look it up on ibiblio or Wikipedia. Unfortunately, like many good ideas, it didn't take off because folks couldn't imagine a profitable use for it.

bjt 12y ago
Looks a lot like the resource names on AWS [1]  arn:aws:elasticbeanstalk:us-east-1:123456789012:environment/My App/MyEnvironment  arn:aws:iam::123456789012:user/David  arn:aws:rds:eu-west-1:001234567890:db:mysql-db  arn:aws:s3:::my_corporate_bucket/* http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-arns-and-namespaces.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-arns-and-na...
- eropple 12y ago
  It should. There's a reason for that. :)
  - danellis 12y ago
    What's the reason, and why didn't they just use URNs?
    - pluma 12y ago
      I think the implication is meant to be "they look like URNs because they are".
      - wtbob 12y ago
        Except that they're not; rather, they're ARNs. URNs must begun with 'urn:'. It doesn't make a lot of sense that they're not URNs, but…they're not.
        eropple 12y ago
        My guess: "nobody uses URNs generally, so might as well save four bytes off every one?"
    - eropple 12y ago
      The reason is because they're based off the same principle. "ARN" stands for "Amazon Resource Name". I don't know why they didn't use URNs. Probably because nobody else does.

by wtbob 12y ago

bjt 12y ago

Looks a lot like the resource names on AWS [1]  arn:aws:elasticbeanstalk:us-east-1:123456789012:environment/My App/MyEnvironment  arn:aws:iam::123456789012:user/David  arn:aws:rds:eu-west-1:001234567890:db:mysql-db  arn:aws:s3:::my_corporate_bucket/* http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-arns-and-namespaces.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-arns-and-na...

eropple 12y ago
It should. There's a reason for that. :)
- danellis 12y ago
  What's the reason, and why didn't they just use URNs?
  - pluma 12y ago
    I think the implication is meant to be "they look like URNs because they are".
    - wtbob 12y ago
      Except that they're not; rather, they're ARNs. URNs must begun with 'urn:'. It doesn't make a lot of sense that they're not URNs, but…they're not.
      - eropple 12y ago
        My guess: "nobody uses URNs generally, so might as well save four bytes off every one?"
  - eropple 12y ago
    The reason is because they're based off the same principle. "ARN" stands for "Amazon Resource Name". I don't know why they didn't use URNs. Probably because nobody else does.