revised proposal

URI news will come separately; however, during the URI NG BOF held
this afternoon, I edited the various URI proposals on the fly at the
meeting, and promised to send out the revised slides. Here they are
(as best as I can represent the squiggles on paper as text):


  Charter scope: finish URI work on URLs.

  some possible milestones: 
	---- move 1808 to draft standard
	---- revise 1738, move to draft standard
   (The hand-drawn line was that 'vetting new URL schemes'
    would become part of 1738, and that it was likely
    that 'new URL schemes should be done as standards track')

(B) URC Syntax & Structure

  Charter scope:
    create RFC standards track with just URC syntax,
    attribute sets, definition, registration(?)
  some possible milestones:
     --- URC syntax requirement
     --- URC presentation to proposed standard

  The hand drawn note was 'Text?', which was a reminder
  wanting URC representation not to necessarily be a text/presentation

(C) Information resolution

  Charter scope:
   create RFCs on distributed database algorithms
   protocols, infrastructure on URN -> URL, 
   URC, ratings (?) etc.,  resolution, update, dissemination

  some possible milestones:
	*-- generic URN syntax
	--- URC scenarios draft to informational RFC
	*-- Interim report/draft RFC of group studying URN proposals
	--- Informational RFC on general URN resolution
	--- Proposed standards for specific URN syntaxes
	--- Proposed standards for specific URN resolution procedures
        *-- Interface to resolution
        *-- (at least one) Experimental RFC on URN resolution

Crossed out: -- Draft of RFC1737 changes/ Revise RFC1737 (URN requirements)

The WG proposal is that only the *'d milestones remain.

(D) URI status & relationships

  Charter scope:
    create informational RFC surveying current state of relationship
    between URI proposals, other kinds of naming and resolution
    systems, current experiments on larger internet community

   some possible milestones:
	---  Draft Uniform resource relationship paper for discussion
	---  proposed standards(?) for specific URC applications

The discussion was that this document would be written without a
working group.

Also, 'URA draft to experimental RFC' was removed from the milestones
here, and instead the possibility that a separate URA WG might be
formed when it was appropriate to do so. 

(E) Bibliographic Resource Descriptions

  Charter scope:
   Develop a bibliographic tag set,
    (should also describe relationship to IAFA and CSTR and other tagsets)

   some possible milestones:
	standards-track or informational RFC on tagset

Received on Thursday, 20 July 1995 09:52:54 UTC