To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: email@example.com's message of Wed, 14 Jun 1995 14:56:40 -0700 <95Jun14.firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Question for DNS propronents? From: Larry Masinter <email@example.com> Message-Id: <95Jun14.firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:17:06 PDT > 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. I view the meetings as an opportunity to air informal opinions and have discussion. But most of the work and planning should happen on the mailing list. I think we have an opportunity to make progress on the URN proposal without interfering with the progress on URCs and we should do so. > Personally, I do not think we will come up with a single solution that > combines all the proposals and I think even if we did, such a solution would > probably be worse than any one of the given proposals. So what I would > suggest is that perhaps instead of trying to focus on converging the > solutions maybe we focus on interoperability for now (even if it's > only among some of the proposals and not all) at the syntax and protocol > level. Based on my reading of the proposals I think this doable. What do > other folks (especially those with proposals) think about this? I've been hoping for 'selection' rather than 'convergence', i.e., that we would discard some of the proposals as 'unworkable' and merge the rest. As I mentioned before, I think we can separate out syntax, structure and semantics of names syntax, structure and semantics of descriptions (characteristics) from mechanisms for relating names, descriptions, and resources. The current charter of the URI working group is to define the syntax structure and semantics of resource identifiers, by the way, and _not_ to establish standards for protocols. The only purpose for implementation experimentation is as an existance proof that, for example, the name syntax does not hinder the ability to build an effective resolution mechanism. I think in the end we will be faced with choices where there is no good reason to choose one form over another (what is the delimiter between naming authority and name) and that these will be the hardest for us to reach because most of the opinions are informed by instincts that are hard to express (familiarity). If my posts are a little disjointed the last few days, it's because I'm using an awkward mechanism for dealing with my mail, and I apologize. I would like to encourage anyone who has a personal scorecard on 'URN proposals and my opinions on them' to post it.