From: atotic@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Alexsander Totic)
Message-Id: <9402190231.AA26019@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: caching
To: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:31:27 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <199402190201.AA29031@oit.gatech.edu> from "Michael Mealling" at Feb 18, 94 09:01:07 pm
Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu writes:
> I'm thinking more and more that URN->URL resolving should be
> URN->URC resolving...
Depending upon the purpose of the query. If we are looking for speedy
resolution, where the browser automatically picks up the best solution
(WWW browsing scenario), the only really important thing that browser
needs to know is where the closest node is. If the user is not pleased with
the result, he can look up the URC, and get more info. I think that overhead
associated with retreiving a list of URCs for every query would be significant.
Also, in a list of URCs resulting from a resolution of a single URN, most of
the information would be replicated, and usually only URL and type would vary.
Aleks