# Re: URN single or multiple variants

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Thu, 16 Sep 1993 01:32:55 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mitra: "URN single or multiple variants"
- Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: URN single or multiple variants"
- In reply to: Mitra: "URN single or multiple variants"
- Next in thread: Chris Weider: "Re: URN single or multiple variants"

    Message-Id: <9309160532.AA13528@thud.cs.utk.edu>

    From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

    To: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: URN single or multiple variants

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Sep 1993 18:04:47 GMT."

                 <CDEq80.nn@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 01:32:55 -0400

Mitra writes...

> a) we assign a single URN to this (and pass it around with
> attribute information to distinguish the variant to choose) or
>
> b) assign a URN to each of the variants, with the attribute information
> telling us about the document we have.
>
> I believe we consensed on (a) because it allows us to present users with
> a choice of variants. If this is not the case, then we need a decision soon
> because it fundamentally affects the design of information systems using
> URN's.

(a) seems like the wrong place to do this. if you do (a) you can't cache
the contents of URNs.

I think the variant forms should show up when searching for an object
(and then the search can also specify which kinds of object to return)...
The result of a search can always include pointers to "similar" objects.

So (b) seems like the best choice in the long run.

(or perhaps someone can explain why it is otherwise?)

Keith Moore

- Next message: Mitra: "URN single or multiple variants"
- Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: URN single or multiple variants"
- In reply to: Mitra: "URN single or multiple variants"
- Next in thread: Chris Weider: "Re: URN single or multiple variants"