From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
Subject: Re: URN functional spec
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:59:13 GMT
Message-Id: <CKz0qq.8HA@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Karen and Larry
Well done ! I think this is a really good functionally description of what we
are trying to achieve.
I have two comments on it.
1) I think it omits some functional requirements. In particular, I think there
are more functional requirements around the retrieval/access side of things.
Having said that, I think that if their is broad agreement on the
requirements, that we allow some revision at a later date when
someone jumps up and says - "but if you do it that way, then I cant do this"
2) I'd like to see the line "although explicit semantics accessible to the
human are discouraged" removed. The reason .... in the last few days
I've passed on at least a dozen or so URL's in email to people. I think
one of the WG's goals is to move people away from URL's to URN's. However
user's are not going to move from something hard-to-use to someting even
harder. My guess is that if URN's are a meaningless collection of
letters/numbers/symbols then we'll see URL's used for a lot longer than if
URN's are accessable. Please note - I am NOT suggesting that human-accessible-
semantics are a functional requirement, but I dont want them discouraged. I
believe those naming authorities which use accessible names will see
a much faster uptake of those URN's while those using things like MD5
checksums will see them ignored in favour of URLs.
- Mitra