Re: UR Accessors

Leslie Daigle (leslie@bunyip.com)
Sun, 2 Jul 1995 16:00:40 -0400


From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 16:00:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199507022000.QAA05704@beethoven.bunyip.com>
To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re:  UR Accessors



Again, apologies for the delay in participating in this thread...

[From Daniel Laliberte's message:]

> Maybe we should call this new thing a URA, with "A" for "accessor".
> (Footnote: I have trouble with URAs being universal resource agents.
> Why are they not just "agents"?  What do they have to do with
> resources.  Agents probably ought to find their own umbrella anyway
> since they are even further removed from identifiers.)

I'll not dive into a full-fledged defence of URAs until I have
(re-)written a document that more people find communicative of the URA
concept, but for a different cut on why URAs are URIs, see the recent
thread on querying in URCs for a brief introduction to the concept of 
formally-encapsulated actions as identifiers of resources -- where
resource is taken in the rather more inclusive sense than just
"files".

> done well in the interim.  I like URA, for Universal Resource
> Accessor, but I am open to other names.

As an aside,  I would like to think that a (pardon me) _weightier_ reason 
will be required before the meaning of an acronym is undertaken in
this arena...!

Cheers!
Leslie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Life is a Usability Test"                             Leslie Daigle
                                                       leslie@bunyip.com
           -- ThinkingCat                              Montreal, Canada

------------------------------------------------------------------------------