# Re: URN to URC scenario

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Sun, 27 Feb 1994 22:11:17 PST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: URN to URC scenario"

    To: peterd@bunyip.com

    In-Reply-To: peterd@bunyip.com's message of Sat, 26 Feb 1994 08:24:15 -0800 <94Feb26.082422pst.2737@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: URN to URC scenario

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

    Message-Id: <94Feb27.221123pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Sun, 27 Feb 1994 22:11:17 PST

> Looking at the examples, the format seems to eliminate the
> distinction between naming authority, publisher ID and
> resource ID that Chris and I postulated in our original
> proposal. I think there's a problem with that.

The URN requirements document we have doesn't currently mention
anything about a requirement to distinguish between naming authority,
publisher, or named object. Maybe that's a good requirement, and we
should put it into the requirements document.

> Is there an implied "Larry's scheme:" prefix for each of
> these examples or do you in fact feel that the distinction
> between naming authority and named object is not needed?

I'm sorry, I was trying to follow along `Mitra's scheme', but I guess
I got it wrong. I'm not sure, but I did think Mitra was intending to
separate out the naming authority from the resource ID. Maybe
`resource IDs' don't have / in them? Mitra?

- Next message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: URN to URC scenario"