- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 16:00:47 -0400
- To: uri@bunyip.com
A composite reply to some comments on the revised URI charter I proposed yesterday... [From Terry Allen's message:] > >However, it is premature to be nailing down URC standards before we > have the primitives sorted out. [snip] > sorting out is there to do? Be specific, please. I specifically think it is premature to be picking implementations of URCs before we have an appropriate view of how they fit in with the rest of the URI structure. As a concrete example, my earlier message exchange with Mark Madsen culminates with me having the impression that his work is interpreting the _proposed SGML implementation_ of URC's, not the URC concept in general. Thus, when the rest of the URI work has caught up with URC's, we'll be left with a legacy of an implementation AND derivative work that was built before we'd nailed the basics of URNs and URN resolution. [From Ron Daniel's message:] > Hmmm. I really think that we should have a standard for URCs, since > they are the means for mapping URNs to URLs and both of those are to > be standardized. Since standardization is the goal, I don't want to > put out a charter saying it is not. Agreed, we can't keep these things completely hypothetical and stall out their development, particularly, as Ron points out, when they are key to other work. I don't think it would be inappropriate to have experimental specs for imlementation specifically for the purpose of URN resolution. My point is that I don't believe it is time to base the entire URC implementation on that one use of URCs; as an example, the Silk software is already making use of things that we would _like_ to be able to call a type of URC object, but URC's may be nailed shut before we get all of our requirements shaken out. >From a technical aspect I think it is OK to say we will concentrate on > URNs this year and experiment with URC, URAs, ... However, since the > IESG has said "no research!", I think it is a bad idea to write the > charter for the group in such a fashion. Larry can probably comment on > this better than I, but my impression is that we should not expect to > revise the charter every year. We have to do it now because the > original charter is basically complete and just about all of us think > that the group has a lot more useful work to do. I'm not up to date on direct pronouncements from the IESG. However, I don't think there is anythign I have suggested that can't be presented in a more concrete light, given the right wording. I was trying to get a philosophy across; that things other than URNs should be on deck, but not driving the buggy. As for whether we revise the charter next year, or decide that URI work is done and the remaining stuff should migrate to another, more focussed workingn group then -- either option seems appropriate. That is, while URAs and URCs are contributing to the shaping of URNs and URLs, they belong in this working group. When the remaining issues are largely about metadata, etc, then perhaps they should migrate. (I don't think I have to make it too plain that the following is a personal opinion; it may not fit well with traditional IETF structures). > > Determine an interim URN syntax for the purposes of evaluating URN > > proposals shortly after the Stockholm IETF. > > I'm sorry Leslie, but I don't think this last item is possible. Why > should the proponents of the various URN schemes find an interim > solution easier to agree on than a full one? Especially since interim I agree that the interim syntax is not an optimal approach (particularly, as Ron points out, since interim ones have a way of becoming de facto standards). However, we do need SOMETHING to break the deadlock on the URN work. As for different URN proposers accepting an interim one any better than the final one: it is the WORKING GROUP that should be driving this, and from that perspective, it is in the WORKING GROUP's interest to find a means to evaluate competing schemes. To end on a personal opinion -- the URI group is now a lot larger than it was when it was originally set up. The issues faced are recognized as being immediately relevant. Part of the reasoning behind revising the charter (from my perspective) was to refocus the working group to reflect the fact that there are a number of diverse opinions flinging across this list and forward progress on URN matters is difficult to perceive. Disbanding the URI group would fail to reflect the fact that there is a LOT of URI work left to be done. However, it might just come to something as drastic as that if this working group is not succeeding in making any progress on that work. Cheers! Leslie. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Two heads are better than one" Leslie Daigle leslie@bunyip.com -- ThinkingCat Montreal, Canada July 8, 1995. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 6 July 1995 15:57:05 UTC