# Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful

Karen R. Sollins (sollins@lcs.mit.edu)
Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:36:16 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- Previous message: Karen R. Sollins: "Re: Stockholm Metadata BOF"
- In reply to: Fisher Mark: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- Reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"

    Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:36:16 -0400

    Message-Id: <199506271636.MAA08681@lysithea.lcs.mit.edu>

    From: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>

    To: FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com

    In-Reply-To: <2FF0182B@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM> (message from Fisher Mark on Tue, 27 Jun 95 07:23:00 PDT)

    Subject: Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful

Mark,

Let me add to your list of reasons that it is a bad idea for a
resolver name (or resolution service name) to be embedded in a URN.
There may well be (hopefully will be) more than one resolution service
available at any given time. At any particular time (T) different
clients may prefer different such services for a variety of reasons
(correctness vs. cost, for example). How can the name generator
possibly know the single "right" answer the resolution service to use
for all time, when at any given time more than one may be the right
answers for different clients?

Karen

- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- Previous message: Karen R. Sollins: "Re: Stockholm Metadata BOF"
- In reply to: Fisher Mark: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- Next in thread: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"
- Reply: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful"