Re: Library Standards and URIs

Ronald E. Daniel (rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov)
Wed, 4 Jan 1995 10:54:32 -0700


From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 10:54:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199501041754.KAA07938@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>
To: conklin@info.cren.net
Subject: Re: Library Standards and URIs
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

Jim Conklin sez:

> 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?

That is pretty much what I proposed for the SOAP element - it would
contain a tiny indication of what the reviewer thought (such as a -10 to
+10 rating), information on who did the review, and an optional URN to use
to get a full review. All of that could be protected by a digital signature.

<soap> was a special case of <review> to allow sorts of reviews to be put
into URCs. 

Ron