# revised proposal

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Thu, 20 Jul 1995 06:51:46 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "URI is dead... long live UR?"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "proposed working group tasks"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: revised proposal

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

    Message-Id: <95Jul20.065148pdt.2762@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 06:51:46 PDT

URI news will come separately; however, during the URI NG BOF held
this afternoon, I edited the various URI proposals on the fly at the
meeting, and promised to send out the revised slides. Here they are
(as best as I can represent the squiggles on paper as text):

================================================================
(A) URL

Charter scope: finish URI work on URLs.

some possible milestones:
---- move 1808 to draft standard
---- revise 1738, move to draft standard
(The hand-drawn line was that 'vetting new URL schemes'
would become part of 1738, and that it was likely
that 'new URL schemes should be done as standards track')

================================================================
(B) URC Syntax & Structure

Charter scope:
create RFC standards track with just URC syntax,
attribute sets, definition, registration(?)
some possible milestones:
--- URC syntax requirement
--- URC presentation to proposed standard

The hand drawn note was 'Text?', which was a reminder
wanting URC representation not to necessarily be a text/presentation
structure.

================================================================
(C) Information resolution

Charter scope:
create RFCs on distributed database algorithms
protocols, infrastructure on URN -> URL,
URC, ratings (?) etc., resolution, update, dissemination

some possible milestones:
*-- generic URN syntax
--- URC scenarios draft to informational RFC
*-- Interim report/draft RFC of group studying URN proposals
--- Informational RFC on general URN resolution
--- Proposed standards for specific URN syntaxes
--- Proposed standards for specific URN resolution procedures
*-- Interface to resolution
*-- (at least one) Experimental RFC on URN resolution

Crossed out: -- Draft of RFC1737 changes/ Revise RFC1737 (URN requirements)

The WG proposal is that only the *'d milestones remain.

================================================================-
(D) URI status & relationships

Charter scope:
create informational RFC surveying current state of relationship
between URI proposals, other kinds of naming and resolution
systems, current experiments on larger internet community

some possible milestones:
--- Draft Uniform resource relationship paper for discussion
--- proposed standards(?) for specific URC applications

The discussion was that this document would be written without a
working group.

Also, 'URA draft to experimental RFC' was removed from the milestones
here, and instead the possibility that a separate URA WG might be
formed when it was appropriate to do so.

================================================================
(E) Bibliographic Resource Descriptions

Charter scope:
Develop a bibliographic tag set,
(should also describe relationship to IAFA and CSTR and other tagsets)

some possible milestones:
standards-track or informational RFC on tagset

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "URI is dead... long live UR?"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "proposed working group tasks"