Re: Question for DNS propronents?

Larry Masinter (
Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:59:30 PDT

In-Reply-To:'s message of Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:44:54 -0700 <>
Subject: Re: Question for DNS propronents?
From: Larry Masinter <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:59:30 PDT

> This was something I was thinking about in Danvers. We seem to have to
> much on our plate AND no focus. I'm all for splitting the URI group
> into two groups: one for URNs and one for URCs. One just points to the
> other.....

A while back, I posted a request that people comment on revising the
charter for the URI working group. If you have a proposal for
focussing the charter of the working group, please put it forward.
Personally, I don't see how increasing the number of working groups
will lessen the amount of work to be done. In the case of URNs vs
URCs, one of the fundamental issues facing us is the tradeoff between
including semantic-bearing syntax in the URNs vs letting that
semantics be carried along in some larger context of a URC.

> I don't know what the current status of the agenda is (do we still only
> have one session?), but given the number of different proposals on URNs 
> and the perception that the group needs to concentrate its efforts more, 
> it does not seem unreasonable to me to spend most of the session focusing
> on the various URN proposals and a plan for making some sort of progress
> in this area.

As the area director pointed out, needing two meetings is frequently a
sign of 'not enough work getting done on the mailing list'. After
those exhortations, several groups and individuals have posted their
status and plans all at once, giving us a flurry of activity after a
period of relative quiet. Since most of the work was going on in
parallel and quietly, we're now faced with 'too many proposals' and
'not enough evaluation of those proposals'.

Are there any URN proposals that you would discard out of hand? Are
there any that you think are workable but only with major