> It's not true (at least not without extra assumptions) that URNs mean > a centralized system. For example, there are (version-4) UUID urns to > give a trivial example. UUIDs and hashes, yes. > A probably more practical way is to use a scheme based on what is in > SRFI 97: A central authority (the "Counter") gives out a number on > request (without any judging or blessing). The corresponding library > names will then be like Just have a list of links to crypto hashes of package contents. Package names in this index would be like branches in a git repo, i.e. point to the hash of the latest version. The package contents can be distributed any number of ways, and the recipient can verify the hash to check the integrity of the package. > If one doesn't want to use the "package" authority, they can still > invent their own schemes. It won't be compulsory. Fair enough. The concern of whether or not to start new library design and publishing organizations is orthogonal to the technical discussion about library imports. For imports Scheme should provide "mechanism, not policy". Individual Scheme implementations can provide a default policy on top of the standard mechanism. With time and experimentation, the policies will hopefully converge on something that is intuitive to newbies.
