Re: Library Standards and URIs

Ronald E. Daniel (
Wed, 4 Jan 1995 10:54:32 -0700

From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 10:54:32 -0700
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Library Standards and URIs

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.