# Re: Registrar

Richard Rodgers (rodgers%billings@billings.nlm.nih.gov)
Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:18:17 EDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Rob Raisch: "Re: Registrar"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Registrar & URNs pointing to "current" documents"

    Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 16:18:17 EDT

    From: rodgers%billings@billings.nlm.nih.gov (Richard Rodgers)

    Message-Id: <9307142018.AA01705@billings.nlm.nih.gov>

    To: raisch@ora.com, timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch, ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu,

    Subject: Re: Registrar

> Isn't this just equivalent to having version numbers of an entity?
> I thought that we had decided that this was the sort of information which
> would go into some descriptive material to be somehow attached to the
> entity, but that it was not in general a good idea to elevate this to
> the level of the URN. Perhaps, though a boolean flag somehow associated
> with the URN is a good idea, one which simply states whether the document
> is mutable or not; in the former case, one would be warned to look for
> a version identifier if this is important for the application at hand.
>
> In any event, it seems a poor idea to specify that URNs refer to mutable
^^^^^^^
Rats! Of course I meant "immutable" in the line above...
> documents, as no one can ensure that this will be the case...
>
> Sorry not to be with you in Amsterdam--hope the deliberations are
> proceeding with the usual alacrity! ;^)
> > Cheerio, Rick
> >
>

- Next message: Rob Raisch: "Re: Registrar"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Registrar & URNs pointing to "current" documents"