# Re: URN functionality from URLs

Ton Verschuren (verschur@surfnet.nl)
Wed, 08 Dec 93 11:08:52 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Steve Putz: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"
- Previous message: John C Klensin: "Re: a better ftp URL"
- In reply to: Terry Winograd: "URN functionality from URLs"
- Next in thread: Steve Putz: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"

    Message-Id: <9312081008.AA26585@surprice.surfnet.nl>

    To: winograd@interval.com (Terry Winograd)

    Subject: Re: URN functionality from URLs

    In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 02 Dec 93 17:50:01 -0800.

                 <9312030150.AA09349@interval.interval.com>

    Date: Wed, 08 Dec 93 11:08:52 +0100

    From: Ton Verschuren <verschur@surfnet.nl>

==> From: Terry Winograd

> The recent traffic on URL++s and URNs prompted me to pull together some
> thoughts on the URN/URL issue, which I am sending along here in a pre-draft
> version. The first part is a reflection on the issues, and the rest a
> proposal for a mechanism that meets the goals for URNs. I assume the
> reader is familiar with the discussion on URNs, URLs, etc. from the
> uri@bunyip.com list, IETF meetings, etc. The paper makes
> contextually-dependent references to recent traffic on the uri list, which
> would have to be fleshed out if it were to become an independent document.
>
> ----
> Stable Network File URLs as a mechanism for uniform naming
> Terry Winograd
> Early draft version 12/2/93 -- Fire away!

... draft deleted ...

I don't want to go into details about Terry's excellent proposal, but I
have rather some more general comments. One of the essential ideas in his
proposal is that there will be (part of) archives that are
well-maintained (structured, with indexes and document descriptions and
so on), viz. the STANF part, and others that are not. Information
maintainers can very fexibly decide which part of their info deserves
special treatment (and how) and which part not. This is a very likely way
to go. For example, refer to the IAFA documents and the recently proposed
Bunyip Directory Project which will be using IAFA descriptions as
basis for a directory service based on archie. These two approaches
(STANF and BDP) can go perfectly together. Moreover, the modified
archie can be used as a first URN->URL resolution service.

Also, there is a "natural" task for librarians, viz. the STANF
maintenance. Our InfoServer for example, the info of which is
maintained by the National Library, has parts that can without much
effort be aligned according to the STANF idea, e.g.
<URL:STANF://ftp.nic.surfnet.nl/surfnet>.

So far my comments.

Ton Verschuren - Network Development - SURFnet bv

- Next message: Steve Putz: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"
- Previous message: John C Klensin: "Re: a better ftp URL"
- In reply to: Terry Winograd: "URN functionality from URLs"
- Next in thread: Steve Putz: "Re: URN functionality from URLs"