# Re: URC spec

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 14 Jun 1995 14:09:01 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"
- Previous message: Pierre Desjardins: "Re: UR Accessors"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC spec"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC spec"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    In-Reply-To: mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu's message of Tue, 13 Jun 1995 10:35:39 -0700 <95Jun13.103542pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: URC spec

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <95Jun14.140911pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 14:09:01 PDT

Names are names, and resolution is resolution. You can have a name,
and in one scenario resolve it to a URL and in another resolve it to a
URC.

It would be a mistake to tightly couple the syntax, structure, and
semantics of either object names or representations of object
characteristics with a particular scenario of establishing,
distributing and accessing information about the relations between
those. I imagine we will have far more luck if we try to converge on
the former set of issues (syntax, structure and semantics) while
leaving open the exact mechanisms for dealing with relationships; what
_is_ necessary is an existance proof (names, characteristics and
objects can be effectively related) without necessarily tying them all
together in the same standard.

- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Question for DNS propronents?"
- Previous message: Pierre Desjardins: "Re: UR Accessors"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC spec"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC spec"