Message-Id: <9410061540.AA06539@austin2.hal.com>
To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Subject: Re: Why URN is a subset of URL
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Oct 1994 09:33:21 EDT."
<9410061333.AA09997@expresso.bunyip.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 10:40:07 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
In message <9410061333.AA09997@expresso.bunyip.com>, Peter Deutsch writes:
>
>> URLs are resource _locators_; URNs are _location_ independent names. How
>> something which is location independent can be a member of a subset of a
>> set of locators is a little beyond me at the moment.
>
>Ditto.
How about a venn diagram?
From: UR* and The Names and Addresses of WWW objects
at http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Addressing/Addressing.html
_______________________________________________________
| |
| _______________ _______________ |
| | ftp: | | urn: | |
| | gopher: | | fpi: ? | |
| | http: | | | |
| | etc | | | |
| |_______________| |_______________| |
| URLs URNs |
|_______________________________________________________|
URIs
> For those who claim they don't need these, no
>sweat.
I have seen noone claim that we don't need the features
of replication and authentication.
> I certainly see a need and we plan to deploy them
>soon.
I agree. I just think that any plan that is incompatible with
the WWW addressing syntax is a waste of valuable resources.
Daniel W. Connolly "We believe in the interconnectedness of all things"
Software Engineer, Hal Software Systems, OLIAS project (512) 834-9962 x5010
<connolly@hal.com> http://www.hal.com/%7Econnolly/index.html