Advisability of non-HTTP URI examples

[nicholascar]

Some of the examples in Profile Conneg use URNs to identify profiles, for example Example 1 uses urn:example:profile:1 alongside http://example.org/profiles/2.

Should we continue to use URNs in examples, given that Profile Guidance will indicate URIs should be used (see https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/#RPFDECOS) and that most URIs use are now HTTP URIs? (yes, an assertion but I think true)

This issue was raised due to an OGC presentation of Profile Conneg where the use of a URN in an example was seen as uncomfortable.

[makxdekkers]

@nicholascar Using URN in examples is not in conflict with the note "A profile MUST have URI (or an IRI?) identifying it. The URI SHOULD be an http URI". A URN is a URI, just not a http URI.

[nicholascar]

@makxdekkers yes, agreed. I suppose I’m questioning the advisability of URN examples, rather than ruling them completely incomparable. I’ll change the title to reflect this.

A legitimate answer to this issue might be that there is a continuing case for URNs and this examples using them are warranted. I never use URNs so I’d like to hear someone champion them if we are to keep using them in examples.

[nicholascar]

Duplicate of #690