# Re: Re SGML URC spec comments

Ronald E. Daniel (rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov)
Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:54:59 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"
- Previous message: Mark Madsen: "Re: A Note on URC Querying"

    From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>

    Message-Id: <9506261154.ZM7711@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>

    Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:54:59 -0600

    In-Reply-To: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>

    To: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>, Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>

    Subject: Re: Re SGML URC spec comments

On Jun 25, 8:54pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 1995, Terry Allen wrote:
[Brian wrote the > > > material]
> > >The question is, how does one ask for the complete set of SOAPs
> > > for a given page?
> >
> > I don't think you can, other than by querying all the UR* servers
> > you know about. If anyone can make an URC (potentially including
> > a SOAP, as URCs are extensible), then a SOAP could pop up anywhere.

I agree with Terry that it will not be possible to discover *all* URCs
for a resource, and the best you can do is ask all the URC servers you
know about if they have any info on a particular resource. I think this
is desireable. Certainly, the notion of knowing what everyone else has
ever said about a document is initially very attractive, but there are
a few problems. First, I may not want just anyone to see my notes on a
resource, or I may want to charge them for the priviledge. Second, we
have all seen the variable quality of unmoderated postings. Do you
*really* want to see *everything*? I sure don't. There are cases where
URCs are intended for private use. For example, consider a grad student
working on a thesis and keeping a URC-based equivalent of a BibTEX
database for references. This would have personal comments that are
intended for private use. There is no reason that such a thing has to
be known to the world.

> It would be nice if the author/server *could* provide a pointer to those
> SOAPs (man, two levels of indirection) as a service. This would imply
> the SOAP-creation agent would send some sort of notification to the
> original dociument's server, which could be ignored if the server doesn't
> want to support it.

It would be easy enough for publishers to provide such a submission
mechanism, just to handle customer feedback if nothing else. It could
appear in the <relation> element of the current URC proposal. However,
I think we would all agree that it shouldn't be mandatory.

    --
    Ron Daniel Jr.                email: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
    Advanced Computing Lab        voice: (505) 665-0597
    MS B-287  TA-3  Bldg. 2011      fax: (505) 665-4939
    Los Alamos National Lab        http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel/
    Los Alamos, NM,  87545    tautology: "Conformity is very popular"

- Next message: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"
- Previous message: Mark Madsen: "Re: A Note on URC Querying"