# Re: URC vs IAFA Templates

rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
Tue, 27 Sep 94 14:54:23 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URC usage scenarios"
- Previous message: Sally Hambridge: "URCs and the world"
- In reply to: Jon P. Knight: "URC vs IAFA Templates"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC vs IAFA Templates"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC vs IAFA Templates"

    Message-Id: <199409272054.OAA28139@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>

    To: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>

    Subject: Re: URC vs IAFA Templates

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Sep 94 16:21:58 BST."

                 <Pine.3.05.9409271511.B3780-a100000@suna>

    Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 14:54:23 -0600

    From: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov

> Am I right in thinking that there may be some mileage in trying to bring
> IAFA templates and URCs together?

This is a good question that immediately takes us to the heart of
ongoing efforts for the URC service.

Michael Mealling has been working very hard on the URC service. He favors
using whois++ as the basis for the URC service. There is a strong tie
between whois++ and the IAFA template. Check out the thread beginning with
<URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/archive/uri-94q3.messages/21.html> to
see Michael's work.

I am developing a different possible representation for URC information.
I would like it to be highly compatible with the IAFA templates, but
do not wish to use IAFA templates for a few reasons:

1) IAFA says that authors can only be individuals. As has been pointed out
on this list (by Sally Hambridge, among others), many resources are
"authored" by organizations. The same problem applies to adminstrators,
etc. The converse applies as well. For example, the template spec assumes
that publishers will all be organizations.
2) IAFA represents dates as dd mm yy hh:mm:ss, as in RFC 822. This is in
contrast to library practice of YYYYMMDD HHMMSS, which makes sorting
much easier.
3) IAFA templates do not seem to have good places for putting things
like digital signatures and Seals Of APproval (SOAPs), nor for
identifying the particular scheme used (DSS vs. RSA signatures for
example).
4) IAFA templates don't seem to have a good place for putting URNs and
URLs.
5) If successful, the URC service will be around for a LONG time. I think
that it should be architected according to a few guiding principles
so that it can be modified in a consistent way over time. IAFA seems
to have been set up for the immediate need of Archie, which it is filling
well. But how can it change over the next 20 years to respond to
all the new things that will come around in that time?

There are other resource description schemes that we should attempt to
maintain compatibility with. GILS and USMARC are prime examples. Maintain
compatability does not mean adopt wholesale. It means that we should look
at what they provide and specify the translation between parts of the URC and
their counterparts in the "legacy" schemes.

For a glance at my current thoughts on URC structure, check out:
<URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/ExtRep/urc0.html>
Be warned that this is incomplete and rough.

Ron Daniel

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URC usage scenarios"
- Previous message: Sally Hambridge: "URCs and the world"
- In reply to: Jon P. Knight: "URC vs IAFA Templates"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC vs IAFA Templates"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: URC vs IAFA Templates"