# Re: Follow up on charter proposal

Chris Weider (clw@bunyip.com)
Fri, 7 Jul 1995 10:12:00 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"
- Previous message: weibel@oclc.org: "Re: Replication of UR* resources and Privacy"
- Maybe in reply to: Leslie Daigle: "Follow up on charter proposal"
- Next in thread: Leslie Daigle: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"

    From: Chris Weider <clw@bunyip.com>

    Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 10:12:00 -0400

    Message-Id: <199507071412.KAA01982@kosh.bunyip.com>

    To: leslie@bunyip.com, terry@ora.com, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Follow up on charter proposal

Hi Terry:

>Leslie:
>| A composite reply to some comments on the revised URI charter I proposed
>| yesterday...
>| [From Terry Allen's message:]
>| > >However, it is premature to be nailing down URC standards before we
>| > have the primitives sorted out.
>| [snip]
>| > sorting out is there to do? Be specific, please.
>
>Mark did refer to Ron's SGML example and used SGML by way of illustration,
>but no one is arguing for SGML as the sole implementation. I'm still
>waiting for specific criticisms from you.
>
>| Thus, when the rest of the URI work has
>| caught up with URC's, we'll be left with a legacy of an implementation AND
>| derivative work that was built before we'd nailed the basics of URNs
>| and URN resolution.
>
>Gosh, it sure looks as though we'd be left with a very flexible
>architecture for URC implementations. Do you disagree? If so,
>why, specifically?
>

There are three separate components lumped together under the rubric
'URC'. The first is basic functionality. This is being addressed under
the URC Requirements document, but that functionality will necessarily
evolve as we get deployment experience with URNs and URCs. There need to
be mechanisms in place to enhance functionality. The second is
transfer syntax or encoding syntax. There seems to be a bit of confusion
between the transfer syntax problems and the basic functionality
questions: these are two facets of the problem which are separable and
should be handled separately, and I believe that the work on URCs should
specifically be laid out to handle these separately. The third is basic
agreements on what 'schema' should be used in URCs. This work is being
done in other fora than the IETF but the IETF should have mechanisms to
bring the work done in and publish it as RFCs. All of these threads
are more nebulous and require more time than the URN work; it seems to
me that all Leslie is suggesting is that we do URLs and URNs first
to determine what additional requirements this may impose on the construction
and deployment of URCs.

Chris

- Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"
- Previous message: weibel@oclc.org: "Re: Replication of UR* resources and Privacy"
- Maybe in reply to: Leslie Daigle: "Follow up on charter proposal"
- Next in thread: Leslie Daigle: "Re: Follow up on charter proposal"