Re: Library Standards and URIs

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Tue, 3 Jan 1995 12:20:11 PST


To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
Cc: hoymand@gate.net, michael.mealling@oit.gatech.edu, uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov's message of Sun, 1 Jan 1995 01:44:21 -0800 <95Jan1.014431pst.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: Library Standards and URIs
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <95Jan3.122019pst.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 12:20:11 PST

> As for the battle over the core elements, we could push the scheme
> described above to its extreme and say "there are NO core elements, we
> require ALL attributes to have the URN of their explanation". I think
> that is a bad idea for a couple of reasons - chaos and length. Chaos
> would occur when we 150,000 URNs for "author", "title", etc. Length is
> pretty obvious - would you rather type <author> or <author
> scheme="urn:iana:here.there.org:foo">?

We can't eliminate the chaos that already exists in the world of
meta-data for documents; trying to invent a 'core' set doesn't reduce
the chaos, in fact, but rather adds to it, by introducing yet another
*new* attribute set.

Naming each attribute *set* rather than each individual attribute will
reduce the length to be something managable. It might be possible to
also allow individual attributes to be named even if they don't occur
in the overall set.
<urc scheme="urn:iana:here.there.org:foo">
<author>...</author>
<title>...</title>
<author scheme="urn:iana:banana.br:trigram">
</author>
</urc>