# Re: Yet more URI/URC

pays@faugeres.inria.fr
30 Apr 94 09:40:24+0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: William Manning: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Alexander Dupuy: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Maybe in reply to: Terry Allen: "Yet more URI/URC"
- Next in thread: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Yet more URI/URC"

    Date: 30 Apr 94 09:40:24+0200

    From: pays@faugeres.inria.fr

    To: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu, hoymand@gate.net, peterd@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Yet more URI/URC

    Message-Id: <767691624.12028.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>

>
> I certainly see the need for URN->URL dereferencing but
> I'm beginning to wonder if (heretic!) all we need is to
> add the URN as another field in all those existing library
> catalogue systems that are out there now?
>
> Naaah.... ;-)
>
>
> - peterd
>

That's also exactly my view, though I would associate
a URD (Descriptor) to the URN.
this, not regarding all the traditional publishers requirements that
will be met by URC, will only and simply provide a few attributes
whose purpose will only be to help searching, but searching from
a distributed application on a computer network point of view
it may correspond to the "minimal template" that has been floating
around, and give one or few document name, author date
and will enable the URN -URL resolution

-- PAP

- Next message: William Manning: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Alexander Dupuy: "Re: Seperating URC format and URN->URC resolution"
- Maybe in reply to: Terry Allen: "Yet more URI/URC"
- Next in thread: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Yet more URI/URC"