W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > November 1996

Re: Simple solution? Pub. Idents. vs URN.

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 16:23:30 -0600
Message-ID: <329E10E2.6079@HiWAAY.net>
To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
CC: tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Jon Bosak wrote:
> [Terry Allen:]
> | ISBNs precisely do identify classes of identical physical objects.
> | The paperback and hardback realizations of the same text (nonphysical
> | object) printed exactly the same way commonly have different ISBNs.
> | Furthermore, sloppy publishers sometimes do not change the ISBN of a
> | book when they issue a revised edition.  ISBNs are about the worst
> | possible illustration of URNs.
> You're right, that was a terrible example.  Legal citations might have
> been better.
> Jon

Ah, but it is interesting how many real world examples of URNs you 
can come up with regardless of how usable they are.  Please, do
on with some more illustrations.  How are URNs and SGML catalogs 
related?  What happens if an SGML catalog contains more than one 
of these kinds of examples?  How and where does a URN begin to 
break down?  How does the URL make this less likely to happen?
A URN is cited in VRML now.  I will get the text and post it 
for comparison after the TurkeyFestFever ends later tonight.

BTW, just in the translations provided, I can show where two 
books have different contents.  The printed copy of the Quran 
has a chapter called "The Booty" whereas the text Jon provided 
calls this "The Spoils of War".   So, physical? Are translations 
different objects logically?

Received on Thursday, 28 November 1996 17:23:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC