# Re: URN definition -- a way out?

Mitra (mitra@path.net)
Sat, 23 Oct 1993 01:03:16 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Erik Ostrom: "Type information in URLs"
- Previous message: Bob Deen: "Proposed solution to url: prefix problem"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "URN definition -- a way out?"
- Next in thread: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"

    From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: URN definition -- a way out?

    Message-Id: <CFBs9H.19H@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 01:03:16 GMT

I agree with Dirk that it would be a big mistake either to abandon
"sameness" as property of URN's or to define what "sameness" means.

However Dirk, you are reopening a decision made a long time ago. URN's do
not contain ANY meta information. When we had meta information in URN's
and URLs we had endless arguments as to which meta information they should
contain. This was solved (to everyone's satisfaction I think) by removing
ALL meta information from URN's and putting it in the URM/URCs. With URNs
coming closer to consensus we are only now starting to define what
URMs/URCs look like.

- Mitra

- Next message: Erik Ostrom: "Type information in URLs"
- Previous message: Bob Deen: "Proposed solution to url: prefix problem"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "URN definition -- a way out?"
- Next in thread: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"