# Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of

msm@ansa.co.uk
Wed, 08 Nov 95 17:22:14 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: Misleading report of URN Meeting at University of Tennessee"
- Previous message: msm@ansa.co.uk: "Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of Tennessee, Oct 30-31"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of Tennessee, Oct 30-31"

    From: msm@ansa.co.uk

    Message-Id: <9511081722.AA02729@euclid.ansa.co.uk>

    To: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)

    Subject: Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Nov 1995 11:24:10 EST."

                 <199511081624.LAA09171@oit.gatech.edu>

    Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 17:22:14 GMT

Michael Mealling writes:
> msm@ansa.co.uk said this:

> > I may be missing something, but this wasn't an open invitation meeting,
> > right? For example,you might describe me as an *opponent* of some of
> > the proposals. I certainly didn't know you were having this meeting.
>
> In defense of Keith it was a meeting of those persons who had current or
> pending proposals. It was not meant to 'circumvent' the URN group but
> instead to see if several of the competing proposals had any common
> ground on which to build on. A few of us made some compromises and we
> came up with a proposal. Its just that. The only weight it carries is
> that each of the attendees is going to modify his/her proposal to
> accomodate the compromises.

Whoa there Michael. I didn't *attack* Keith, I expressed concern about
the way his announcement implied that it represented some sort of wider
consensus.

It might have been better to publicise the meeting in advance, and
invite comments and concerns from the mailing list.

> > Not the DNS limitation again. Please consider putting some
> > extensibility in to the proposal, please please.
>
> DNS can be used for SOME things. As long as its used for what its good for
> and nothing else. I've been noted as being one of the more vocal against
> DNS. I support this proposal. It limites DNS usage to what its good for.
> Personally, I think the path schemes extensions of this are a problematic
> but that is a fallback algorithm that is specifically not discussed here.

As I say, I wasn't at the meeting. However, if you saddle URNs with
the limitations of DNS (which could be far worse for URNs - there is ~1
machine per person, and many orders of magnitude more documents), you
will either be (a) cursed for generations, or (b) ignored.

> > > Service requests

> > What have these got to do with URNs? Leave stuff like this for URC
> > services to worry about. The latter, especially, has already been done
> > without URNs and without embedding hard links into documents, even.
>
> I agree that it needs to be left to URCs but you can't ignore that
> it is important to key members of the community.

Agreed, if you change "key" to "all".

> Life is a game. Someone wins and someone loses. Get used to it.

What if *not* getting used to it is an adaptive advantage in the
Goldsteinian sense?

Mark.
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Madsen: <msm@ansa.co.uk> <URL:http://www.ansa.co.uk/Staff/msm.html>
Information Services Framework, The ANSA Project, APM Ltd., Castle Park,
Cambridge CB3 0RD, U.K. <URL:http://www.ansa.co.uk/>; <apm@ansa.co.uk>
Voice: +44-1223-568934; Reception: +44-1223-515010; Fax: +44-1223-359779

- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: Misleading report of URN Meeting at University of Tennessee"
- Previous message: msm@ansa.co.uk: "Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of"
- In reply to: Michael Mealling: "Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of Tennessee, Oct 30-31"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: report: URN Architecture Meeting at University of Tennessee, Oct 30-31"