From: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199408151301.AA18429@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Additional requirements for URCs?
To: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 09:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SCO.3.89.99.940814231124.4179A-100000@pandora.sf.ca.us> from "Mitra" at Aug 14, 94 11:21:34 pm
Mitra said this:
> What is required is the ability to be able to express concepts in a URC,
> for example
How 'bout this:
URN:foo.bar:ABCDEF
Author: Fred Smith <fred@foo.bar>
{:Integrity
Checksum: 12345
}:
This way it's still a valid template and my dumb client can just ignore
those attributes it doesn't understand....
> The second requirement "a democratic publishing module", is going to be
> hard in any kind of hierarchical, decentralised allocation setup. If the
> publishing entity has a FQDN its easy. otherwise they are going to have
> to have some way of obtaining a publishers id. Maybe we'll see services
> that only allocate publisher id's within their own name space, so making
> the URN independant of any other service that the publisher may require.
That's one of the major reasons I don't want URNs tied to DNS. If you just
make it a PubID devoid of FQDNs then anyone can assign withing a namespace.
I very much want to see an 'alt' namespace where any tom,dick or harry can
publish his recipe for marijuana brownies.....
-MM
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html"> <ADDRESS>Michael Mealling</ADDRESS> <ADDRESS>michael.mealling@oit.gatech.edu</ADDRESS></A>