- From: Karen R. Sollins <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 10:17:04 -0400
- To: moore@cs.utk.edu
- Cc: mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch, moore@cs.utk.edu, FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com, uri@bunyip.com
Keith, I agree with you. What's more, "this group" (not in the formal sense any more) discussed these issues at length over many months several years ago. At that time we agreed that we were not going for user friendly names. Use by humans was to be discouraged. If they are to be globally unique and long-lived and free of semantics, so that the semantics will not be invalidated with time then they are not going to be things that people would/should use, and such issues as user friendly character sets should not be an issue. Personally, I would like to discourage human transcription as well, but the group did agree that that was an important feature, so we should pick a character set that is limited enough that it is transcribable on any keyboard we know of or can imagine. As was said earlier, if that means digits only, that's fine. For a long while we've been using the digits plus about 20 consonants. No vowels, to discourage any use of "words" in any language that we knew of. While I'm on this topic, you might want to think about the fact that there are several ways to embed meaning in some sense in a string such as a URN. One is to say that the characters in particular orderings have meaning in one or another human language. Another is that the string as a whole has structure, perhaps (but not always) defined by what one might consider puntuation. This allows for partitioning into components. Each component string may itself not have meaning in a human language, but the structure may convey meaning. I believe that it was our intention, as described in RFC 1737, that URNs were not required and probably not expected to have exposed meaning in either sense. That would certainly not prevent the creator of a URN from embedding semantics. In fact, URN creators might choose to expose the semantics they embed, but they should know that the are exposing their users and perhaps themselves to the sorts of problems that Keith has been describing. I don't recommend that we repeat all the discussions about semantics and therefore character set again. We should get through at least complete one round of engineering of the full complement of components needed to do identification of and access to objects in the net. Karen
Received on Friday, 11 August 1995 10:16:32 UTC