# String Equality for determining URN equality?

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 1 Dec 1993 14:33:12 PST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Minor clarification on url: prefix"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: String Equality for determining URN equality?

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

    Message-Id: <93Dec1.143320pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Wed, 1 Dec 1993 14:33:12 PST

((I thought I'd start some discussion about the open issues in the URN
requirements list, by bringing them out one issue at a time):

There was some debate about this at the meeting, but it didn't seem
like there was a conclusion. Personally, I think anything other than
string-equality is too complicated for a 'URN equality' function.
Any other opinions?

================================================================

* Sameness: There exists a mechanism for asking whether two resources
are the same, based on their URNs without going to the naming
authority.

<<DILEMNA: Does this mean

URN1 = URN2 (string compare, but requires a canonicalization to achieve)
or
f(URN1) = g(URN2) (where f and g are known)

- No consensus was reached on the issue of uniqueness / sameness
however the following points were made - This issue arises of the
idea of "intellectual content" - It was agreed that the naming
authority makes decision regarding the intellectual content of the
document. - if an object is moved out of the domain of the naming
authority, do we assign a new URN for it? If we make new copies in
new formats, do we assign new URN? We need to have URN atomically
bound into the resource.
This is still up for discussion. >>>

- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Minor clarification on url: prefix"