# Re: Seattle minutes

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Mon, 04 Apr 1994 19:12:46 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: system 33 paper"
- Previous message: pays@faugeres.inria.fr: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"

    Message-Id: <199404042312.TAA23395@wilma.cs.utk.edu>

    From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

    To: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)

    Subject: Re: Seattle minutes

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Apr 1994 17:30:29 EDT."

                 <199404042130.AA06275@oit.gatech.edu>

    Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 19:12:46 -0400

> > o Larry Masinter remarked that the group had this problem with URLs
> > and URNs because we didn't understand enough about what they
> > were, and we ended up changing the title of ach of those. He
> > suggested that we're putting the cart ahead of the horse.
>
> I disagree. I know exactly what they will do and what they will be used
> for. When I picked a name so much flamage happens over "Oh No! Not another
> acronym!" that I decided that the name was secondary. I new what I
> wanted it to do and I can explain it. I personally like Characteristic but
> if you wanna call it a Uniform Resource Elephant then that will work too.
> ;-)

The important word here is "I". YOU may think you know exactly what
they will do, but the output of this group (if it is to have any)
must be an AGREEMENT on what they will do. We don't currently have
such agreement, and as far as I can tell, we don't even have a shared
UNDERSTANDING of where we disagree (though we are getting closer).

The problem with the name is that people are using the word URC
as if they know what it means. But the person who says URC may
mean something different than the person who hears it.

There's a chicken-and-egg problem here. We need to agree on vocabulary
before we can discuss the proper function of each piece of the system, but
it's impossible to define what a URC is without specifying its function.

> > o Keith Moore didn't think you can lump all these things into a
> > single structure and make it have any meaning. It is non-optimal
> > at best, and won't work at worst.
>
> I disagree. If this group specifies these elements to have meaning then
> they will. It really depends on how tightly the member elements are
> controlled. I like using X- for experimental and have the URI group
> specify "Official" ones such as "Format","Author","Size", etc.

You can lump them in to a single abstract structure if you like, but if the
elements of the structure are maintained in different places and have
different requirements for consistency, it may be misleading to talk about
them as if they were in a common data structure.

Keith

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: system 33 paper"
- Previous message: pays@faugeres.inria.fr: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: Seattle minutes"