W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2002


From: Tim Kindberg <timothy@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:18:49 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, URN <urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>
At 12:43 PM 1/23/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:

>But why should the rest of the world also live with that
>restriction. Many folks *need* hierarchical identifiers.

? tag doesn't deny them that: whatever follows the <authority,date> may be 

> >
> > I'm happy to let such communities develop their own standards but it's none
> > of my business.
>Then why are you commenting on the 'hrn:' scheme?

I was talking about the tag scheme. But I'm also entitled to point out what 
I believe to be deficiencies in other proposals. I thought that that what 
this forum was for.

> > One of our intended use models is indeed that people can attach tags to
> > physical entities but the point of doing so is for users to retrieve
> > digital resources from them
> > (http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-95.html). So I don't see
> > the difference.
>I don't follow. How do you retrieve a digital resource
>"from" a non-digital resource?

You read the identifier with a sensor (e.g. a camera, barcode reader, ...) 
and send the identifier to a resolver, which looks it up and returns the 
URLs of one or more corresponding resources.

>Do you mean e.g. a book which may both be printed and available
>in digital form?

That would be one example. But one could associate (the identifier on) the 
book with many other types of digital resource, depending upon the 
application. Tag has nothing to say about the allowed types of binding.


Tim Kindberg

mobile systems and services lab  hewlett-packard laboratories
1501 page mill road, ms 1u-17
palo alto
ca 94304-1126

voice +1 650 857 5609
fax +1 650 857 2358
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 12:18:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC