Re: Library Standards and URIs

Jim Conklin (conklin@info.cren.net)
Wed, 4 Jan 1995 12:42:12 -0500


Message-Id: <199501041742.MAA12125@info.cren.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 12:42:12 -0500
To: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>, terry@ora.com
From: conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)
Subject: Re: Library Standards and URIs
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

At 10:03 AM 1/2/95 -0700, Ronald E. Daniel wrote:
> ...
>The review attribute may be something that members of the group just
>have to agree to disagree upon. ...

Does it make any sense to consider including "ratings" (i.e., a _short_
synopsys of a review or other val;ue judgement) and referencing longer
reviews (i.e., real documents) through appropriate use of URLs rather than
including what could be real documents in a URC?

>
>As for Author, I was thinking that we would adopt the AACR2 rules of
>listing an author's name in the form that it normally appears in sorted
>lists of names for the author's culture. ...

In terms of human readability and understandability, it seems to me to be
desirable to use this approach rather than the SORTNAME-element approach,
at least if real people are going to be looking at URCs without the benefit
of a client (as I suspect will happen a lot).

Jim