# Re: new draft on URC Usage Scenarios and Requirements

rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
Tue, 29 Nov 94 08:30:39 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: John A. Kunze: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: going too far? (longish diatribe)"
- Next in thread: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: new draft on URC Usage Scenarios and Requirements"
- Reply: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: new draft on URC Usage Scenarios and Requirements"

    Message-Id: <199411291530.IAA07036@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: new draft on URC Usage Scenarios and Requirements

    Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 08:30:39 -0700

    From: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov

This is Michael Mealling's additional comments on my reply to
Terry Allen's message about the URC Scenarios and Requirements
I-D. It is forwarded to the list with Michael's permission.

Ron Daniel
------- Forwarded Message

Received: from oit.gatech.edu (ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu [130.207.166.135]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.6.9/8.6.4) with ESMTP id NAA11538 for <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 13:17:48 -0700
Received: (from ccoprmm@localhost) by oit.gatech.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id PAA29149; Mon, 28 Nov 1994 15:17:40 -0500
From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199411282017.PAA29149@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: new draft on URC Usage Scenarios and Requirements
To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov (Ronald E. Daniel)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 15:17:40 -0500 (EST)
Cc: terry@ora.com, Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu, rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
In-Reply-To: <199411281948.MAA04984@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov> from "Ronald E. Daniel" at Nov 28, 94 12:48:21 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2879

Ronald E. Daniel said this:
> > | 2.2 Meta-data for its own sake
> > |
> > | o User is browsing and comes across a moderately interesting link.
> >
> > a URN?
>
> Right, the destination of the link would have to be expressed as a URN.

Not necessarily. If the resolution service is good enough you could
possibly do the DNS version of a reverse lookup given a URL. This will
be a valuable service during a ramp up period...

> > | o Browser fetches the URC for the resource and displays it in a
> > | nicely formatted dialog box.
> >
> > The full URC corresponding to all the info associated with the URN?
> > (If URCs may contain URCs, which is my current belief/misunderstanding,
> > there's some potential for confusion between "the URC" and "a URC".)

> Although the syntax for specifying URCs is up in the air, I think that
> URCs should be able to nest. At the top level of such a (potentially)
> nested structure would be one or more URNs that refer to the same resource.
> That entire structure should be returned, and it is up to the browser
> to thin it down.

I think there was some confusion here. One requirment of a URC is that
is both subset-able and superset-able. I.E. I can take one URC and nest
it within another (what that means is variable). Now, that URC can
be specified as being atomic via some means (checksum, digital signature,etc).
This is why I specify that a URC has a time to live of zero. Some subset
can have a specified TTL but that is a subset not the whole thing.

Thats why I don't think you can talk about "_the_ URC" of a resource since
some parts of the URC could exist in private networks or even on paper.
There is the concept of the "authoritative URC" which is what you as
the publisher says is authoritative and immutable.

>
> Second, even if we confine ourselves to searching a catalog of URC resources
> harvested from around the world, OCLC would not want to cede this job to
> the LC. I wouldn't want them to. I don't want to leave such a crucial and
> expensive task to the LC, given the uncertain resolve of legislators. Stu
> Weibel and I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that when widely used,
> URCs could grow at the rate of a petabyte per year. (1 billion people and/or
> organizations each publishing 100 URNs per year, each taking 10 kB). Obviously
> it will be awhile before we have a billion publishers, but it is a concern
> for 20 years from now.

I envision URCs and URNs for just about everything published on the net.
UseNet News msgids would/could be URNs. I dont' think LC wants to start
cataloging UseNet news articles. ;-)

Everything else I'll just ditto.....
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html">
<ADDRESS>Michael Mealling</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>michael.mealling@oit.gatech.edu</ADDRESS></A>

------- End of Forwarded Message

- Next message: John A. Kunze: "Re: draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt IESG comments"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: going too far? (longish diatribe)"
- Next in thread: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: new draft on URC Usage Scenarios and Requirements"
- Reply: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: new draft on URC Usage Scenarios and Requirements"