Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Roy T. Fielding said this:
> >> Please note that the "L" in "URL" represents "Locator", not "Location".
> >> Any naming scheme that requires there exist some mechanism for resolution,
> >> whether or not the mechanism is currently in operation, changes over time,
> >> or subject to multiple levels of indirection, is a locator.
> >
> >URNs never required a mechanism for resolution.
> >
> >> There do exist names that are not locators, but those names are not URNs.
> >
> >Actually, unless the documents have changed the design was that the URN
> >need not have a resolution method.
> 
> That's what I thought too, until RFC 2141 went up for last call.  E.g.,
> 
>    7. Functional Equivalence in URNs
> 
>       Functional equivalence is determined by practice within a given
>       namespace and managed by resolvers for that namespeace.
> 
> which in my mind is the same as requiring a resolution method.  There is
> no value in the "urn" scheme if it doesn't define functional equivalence.
> 

Hmm... then we should have done a better job on that section. The document
_should_ have had nothing to say about resolution but I guess it snuck in.

I wonder if that's fixable...

-MM

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	| 505 Huntmar Park Drive       | Phone:  (703)742-0400
Software Engineer	| Herndon, VA 22070	       | Fax:    (703)742-9552
Network Solutions	| <URL:http://www.netsol.com>  | michaelm@rwhois.net

Received on Thursday, 30 October 1997 10:11:51 UTC