- From: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 16:59:44 CST
- To: uri@bunyip.com
mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Michael Shapiro) said: > > I would be willing to come and present the current thinking on the > > "path" URN scheme proposed some time back by Dan LaLiberte. Larry Masinter writes: > In my personal opinion, presentations, even if > interesting, are not high priority unless they're going to lead to > progress on the documents that the committee is charged with > producing. > At this point in our discussions on URNs, we need people > either to propose amendments to the current URN draft or else > volunteer to produce a new alternative URN proposal. To be more concrete, we will propose a new alternative URN scheme, called the path scheme. We may also propose some amendments to the URN requirements RFC, if that is in order. As a point of clarification, the current URN draft should not be considered *the* URN scheme. In other words, "the current URN draft" could be one of many rather than the only one. I realize that the draft in question gives the name of the scheme as "urn:", but I believe this is a mistake. Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu) National Center for Supercomputing Applications http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 1995 18:03:20 UTC