W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 1995

Comments on "URN Services"

From: Renato Iannella <ren@dstc.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 12:55:16 +1000 (EST)
To: uri@bunyip.com
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950607121917.24545R@azure.dstc.edu.au>

Some comments on the Internet Draft by Shafer (et al)
"URN Services" (draft-shafer-uri-urn-resolution-00.txt)

1 - The syntax and structure for URNs has changed !
    I was under the impression (from "Generic URN Syntax"
    internet draft) that a URN consisted of:


    The new proposal seems to be:


2 - I can see the need to be able to specify a "type"
    of URC to be returned. I would prefer to see:


    Each urc-type would be defined in an internet-draft like
    "Trivial URC Syntax: urc0"
    The opaque-string would point the the "full" URC of which the
    urc-type would be returned (if many types are supported by 
    the resolution service).

3 - What is the reason for a URL to URC service? It sounds
    likes a nightmare to maintain. It may even allow users
    not to ever assign a URN ?

4 - In the URN to URL service it says that a single URL should
    ultimately be returned. What if I have a URN that identifies
    the Technical Reports written by my organisation:


   I would like this to return a list of URLs of all our
   tech reports:


   Should there be a "URN to URLS" service ?
   (This is related to point 2 above)

Cheers... Renato
Dr Renato Iannella             phone:  +61 7 365 4310  fax: +61 7 365 4311
Research Data Network CRC                     www: http://www.dstc.edu.au/
DSTC Pty Ltd, Uni of Queensland, 4072, AUSTRALIA    email: ren@dstc.edu.au
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 1995 22:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:30 UTC