# Re: URN to URC scenario

Mitra (mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us)
Mon, 28 Feb 1994 18:02:19 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- Previous message: Ruediger Volk: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- Maybe in reply to: Mitra: "URN to URC scenario"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN to URC scenario"

    From: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: URN to URC scenario

    Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 18:02:19 GMT

    Message-Id: <CLy4rw.CnB@pandora.sf.ca.us>

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com) wrote:
: 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?

I was planning on seperating naming authority from resource id, but NOT
naming authority from publisher. The reason for not seperating the later,
is that it allows this to be in effect a hierarchical arrangement, since a
publisher can create sub-ids' then they are in effect a naming authroity for
what is beneath them. I'm certainly open to being convinced that
there is a need for a seperation - but I havent heard one yet.

I was presuming that the seperation between publisher and resource could be
handled trivially by extracting the last component of the hierarchy, much like
we extract a filename from a full pathname, but I think that is just a
syntactical issue(allowed characters etc) - I dont think there is any question
that we NEED to be able to extract the resource from the publisher, the syntax
can be chosen later.

- Mitra

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- Previous message: Ruediger Volk: "Re: URN to URC scenario"
- Maybe in reply to: Mitra: "URN to URC scenario"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URN to URC scenario"