Re: Whither URI: Revising the charter, disband URI?

Mark Madsen (msm@ansa.co.uk)
Thu, 6 Jul 95 15:27:45 BST


From: Mark Madsen <msm@ansa.co.uk>
Message-Id: <9507061427.AA20836@euclid.ansa.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Whither URI: Revising the charter, disband URI?
To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 15:27:45 BST
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, uri@bunyip.com, msm@ansa.co.uk
In-Reply-To: <9507050950.ZM20189@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>; from "Ronald E. Daniel" at Jul 5, 95 9:50 am

Ron Daniel wrote:
> Here is a revised version of the draft charter I sent out

<snip>

> The group will also review proposals and produce standards for other
> Uniform Resource Identifiers as they are suggested during the
> lifetime of the working group. Uniform Resource Agents and Uniform
> Resource Pseudonyms are two classes of identifer that have been
> suggested.

I suggest that it would be worth adding criteria against which new
proposals could be evaluated for review-worthiness.  After all, there
are still nearly 20 letters left in the roman alphabet for URBs,
UREs,... URZs.

> Goals and Milestones
> ====================

> Review URC proposals and select one to go forward as a proposed
> standard. Discussion should be largely complete by the spring
> '96 IETF, and a "last call" should be issued before the summer '96
> meeting.
> (In reply to the first draft of the charter revisions, Larry asked if
> we had any, let alone multiple, URC specs to discuss. Since then I
> have sent out my draft for a SGML-based URC service. As far as I know,
> that is the only current proposal for a URC spec. Can some people
> out there PLEASE send in their comments on that draft? We can't
> move it forward unless we discuss it.) 

Well, every time that someone tries to discuss it (myself, yourself,
Karen, Leslie and Terry so far) someone else counters by suggesting
another way to code resolution methods into URNs and draws all the
fire....

> Review the Uniform Resource Agents draft, ca. the Stockholm meeting.
> Recommend a course of action for that work before Dallas. If the
> work receives approval of the WG, the draft should be revised in
> time for Dallas. Last call might be issued in time for the summer
> '96 meeting.

Ths seems a bit rushed to me, because we are talking about something
entirely new here, and still a hot research topic.  I'd like to have a
better idea of what agent standards are for, and what people like DEC
and Sun are going to be doing with their products.  Otherwise we end
up with IETF standards that are short of reality.  It's happened
before.

> (Do we need something about a UR architecture draft?)

Well, there's nothing more important than architecture :-)

Seriously, though, a good case could probably be made for a general
object architecture, and possibly a computational model.  The
enterprise and business models, on the other hand, are probably best
left alone.  This points up the fact that there still need to be a
variety of architecture drafts if there are any.

> Ron Daniel Jr.                email: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov

Mark.

--
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Madsen: <msm@ansa.co.uk> <URL:http://www.ansa.co.uk/Staff/msm.html>
Information Services Framework, The ANSA Project, APM Ltd., Castle Park,
Cambridge CB3 0RD, U.K.  <URL:http://www.ansa.co.uk/>;  <apm@ansa.co.uk>
Voice: +44-1223-568934; Reception: +44-1223-515010; Fax: +44-1223-359779