Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
Michael Mealling (michael@bailey.dscga.com)
Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:34:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Message-Id: <199710301434.JAA20070@bailey.dscga.com>
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
In-Reply-To: <9710300005.aa15035@paris.ics.uci.edu> from "Roy T. Fielding" at "Oct 29, 97 11:58:28 pm"
To: fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (Roy T. Fielding)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:34:54 -0500 (EST)
Cc: michaelm@rwhois.net, uri@bunyip.com, connolly@w3.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com,
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