# UR* issues for Stockholm: New WGs?

weibel@oclc.org
Mon, 19 Jun 1995 15:04:42 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mitra: "Re: <draft-ietf-uri-resource-names-03.txt> to be deleted."
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: Belated comments on OCLC's proposal"

    From: weibel@oclc.org

    Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 15:04:42 -0400

    Message-Id: <199506191904.PAA01243@ws02-00.rsch.oclc.org>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: UR* issues for Stockholm: New WGs?

peterd writes:

> Does it bother anyone else that with the closing of IIIR,
> there is nowhere within the IETF that appears to be
> considering the architectural issues implicit in all of
> this acronym soup?

At the final meeting of IIIR in Danvers, there was some discussion of
starting a new WG on Metadata. Several at that meeting, including Erik
Huizer of the IETF and Larry Masinter, our URI Chair, encouraged me in
that direction. My intention is to hold a BOF in Stockholm to discuss
such a WG.

I would like to hear pros and cons from other URI folks, either to the
list or to me privately.

Some observations and questions of my own:

Metadata is a large topic indeed; a WG charter must accomodate the
long term evolution of metadata standards while focussing short term
efforts on discrete, achievable sub-goals.

Metadata issues stradle the divide between putting things on the wire
and higher level, "middleware" issues. As such, the traditional IETF
model may not suffice. Stakeholders other than those who frequent the
IETF meetings and lists must be brought into the process.

It seems likely that the architecture issues that Peter alludes to are
related to, but distinct from, the metadata element issues. Do these
belong in the URI arena, the Metadata arena, or in a WG of their own?

stu

Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Office of Research
weibel@oclc.org
(614) 764-6081 (v)
(614) 764-2344 (f)
http://www.oclc.org:5046/~weibel

- Next message: Mitra: "Re: <draft-ietf-uri-resource-names-03.txt> to be deleted."
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: Belated comments on OCLC's proposal"