Re: Persistent Documents and Locations

Karen R. Sollins (
Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:19:38 -0400

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:19:38 -0400
Message-Id: <>
From: "Karen R. Sollins" <>
In-Reply-To: <> (
Subject: Re: Persistent Documents and Locations


I completely agree with you.  I was trying not to get into the
specifics, but, yes, the reason a URN should never be reused is that
it continues to have it's original "meaning" whether or not there is
an instance of the "named" resource around or not.  In fact, for some
resources all I ever want to know about them is their URNs


   From: "Terry Allen" <>
   Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 16:40:10 -0700
   References: <>
   X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95)
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

   I agree with Karen, but would go farther:

   >If the object is still
   around, in 10 yrs, then the URN for it is still "valid". 

   The purpose of the URN is to name.  It still fulfills that function
   when the named thing is gone.  For example, we have many titles of
   lost (and I mean totally lost) ancient literary works.  Those are
   still "valid" titles, and indeed are still useful qua titles.
   They don't have to be resolvable to have that utility.

   <...deleted forwarded msg...>

   Terry Allen  (   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
   Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
				  Sebastopol, Calif., 95472

   A Davenport Group sponsor.  For information on the Davenport 
     Group see

   Current HTML 2.0 spec: