# Re: URN definition -- a way out?

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Tue, 26 Oct 1993 20:28:06 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"
- Previous message: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "URN definition -- a way out?"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"

    Message-Id: <9310270028.AA01318@expresso.bunyip.com>

    From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 20:28:06 -0400

    In-Reply-To: "Fred Swartz"'s message as of Oct 25, 12:50

    To: "Fred Swartz" <fred.swartz@umich.edu>, mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: URN definition -- a way out?

[ You wrote: ]

> > From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
> >There is no protocol definition fro URN->URC resolution,
> >I think that is the key thingto decide on next.

How about the following:

template=URC; URN=blat

That's what the query would look like in WHOIS++. The
result, if found, would be the corresponding record that
contains the attribute "URN: blat" among its attributes.

Despite what I keep hearing, I just don't see the
conversion or dereferencing process as being all that big
a deal. Perhaps someone who feels that this is a real
problem could elucidate the issues, since I can't see it....

> I'd love to see some real protocol proposals to clarify
> the numerous murky issues. Do you see this as a different
> protocol than that which defines URN->URL mapping? Isn't
> the URL just one of the fields of the URN record?
>
> It seems to me there is only one protocol here.

I see perhaps more than one template being used (since I'm
not all that interested in URCs, URMs and so on at this
point, but really want a URN->URL conversion ASAP). Still,
I see the dereferencing as being essentially the same
step in each case.

Of course, there is no requirement that this all has to be
done with WHOIS++, it just so happens that there are now
several different implementations of this available, it's
a simple protocol and it's template-oriented yet flexible.
</end advertisement>

[* Gads. I'm attempting to use HTML humour! :-) *]

- peterd

    --

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"
- Previous message: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "URN definition -- a way out?"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"