From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
Subject: Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...
Message-Id: <CEz522.2Dz@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 05:10:49 GMT
I think this comes down to a fundamental difference of how different people
see using URN's - I think PeterD just wants to use URN's for sameness,
whereas others TimBL want to
use it for retrieval. And the difference between these two sides
is leading to whether we consider urn: to be another scheme like ftp: or wais:
or whether we see it as fundamentallly different and at an equivalent level
to url:
Personally, I think I'd vote the (no URL: yes on UURN:), because I think
implementation is going to be:
If its a recognized type that I know about (ftp: wais: gopher: urn:) then
I'll pass it to the resolution/retrieval engine, if its something I dont
understand xyz: then I'll pass it to a generic server (who I may pay to
find things for me).
I think this discussion has brought up again some fundamental questions about
URN's (especially an you retrieve from one) and I think there are far more
important questions around URL's (Format of news:, whether wais: has length
field etc) than how they are wrapped.
- Mitra
P.S. Can I appeal for brevity and more people's opinions on this point, some
of the past days postings didnt get past my "eyes-glazed-over-at-screen-10"
filter.