Message-Id: <9310270028.AA01318@expresso.bunyip.com>
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 20:28:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: "Fred Swartz"'s message as of Oct 25, 12:50
To: "Fred Swartz" <fred.swartz@umich.edu>, mitra@path.net (Mitra)
Subject: Re: URN definition -- a way out?
[ You wrote: ]
> > From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
> >There is no protocol definition fro URN->URC resolution,
> >I think that is the key thingto decide on next.
How about the following:
template=URC; URN=blat
That's what the query would look like in WHOIS++. The
result, if found, would be the corresponding record that
contains the attribute "URN: blat" among its attributes.
Despite what I keep hearing, I just don't see the
conversion or dereferencing process as being all that big
a deal. Perhaps someone who feels that this is a real
problem could elucidate the issues, since I can't see it....
> I'd love to see some real protocol proposals to clarify
> the numerous murky issues. Do you see this as a different
> protocol than that which defines URN->URL mapping? Isn't
> the URL just one of the fields of the URN record?
>
> It seems to me there is only one protocol here.
I see perhaps more than one template being used (since I'm
not all that interested in URCs, URMs and so on at this
point, but really want a URN->URL conversion ASAP). Still,
I see the dereferencing as being essentially the same
step in each case.
Of course, there is no requirement that this all has to be
done with WHOIS++, it just so happens that there are now
several different implementations of this available, it's
a simple protocol and it's template-oriented yet flexible.
</end advertisement>
[* Gads. I'm attempting to use HTML humour! :-) *]
- peterd
--