W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: [Fwd: Re: Approval of initial Dublin Core Interoperabiity Qualifiers]

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:59:24 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: Larry Lannom <llannom@cnri.reston.va.us>
Cc: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>, W3C URI List <uri@w3.org>, Norman Paskin <n.paskin@doi.org>, "Sun, Sam X." <ssun@cnri.reston.va.us>
Hello Larry,

At 00/05/10 21:44 -0400, Larry Lannom wrote:
> >Using http://handle.org/ or some such
>Right. In fact, that has been the case for some years now -- so this
>handle (a DOI)
>can be resolved using a proxy server such as
>http://hdl.handle.net/10.1000/170 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1000/170 or


>or in a URI-type syntax as
>which uses the handle protocol directly and which is, not surprisingly,
>more efficient for handle resolution,

Why is it more efficient? Of course, if the above servers are
run as simple proxies that just transform and forward the
request, it gets slower, but it should also be possible to
do a more coupled implementation that should not be slower.

Please note that the DNS lookup overhead inherent in the HTTP protocol
is also incurred for an urn solution, if DNS is used to find the
resolver for the URN.

>but of course requires software
>such as a browser extension that understands it, as a URI. To the best
>of our knowledge most handle resolution currently goes through one or
>another proxy server.

Why is there more than one? To share the load? It could be distributed
rather easily on the dns level.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2000 03:54:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:01 UTC