Re: UR Accessors

Paul Hoffman (ietf-lists@proper.com)
Wed, 14 Jun 1995 20:35:52 -0700


Message-Id: <v02120c23ac05540df039@[165.227.40.35]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 20:35:52 -0700
To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
From: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)
Subject: Re: UR Accessors
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

At 7:06 AM 6/14/95, Daniel LaLiberte wrote:
>We need a new name for a URI concept that has been bouncing around
>under the name "URC0".  A URC0 has been thought of as a set of URLs
>(previously called a list of URLs) where any one of the URLs would do
>as the identifier of the resource.  I want to generalize this further,
>and distinguish it from the other URC issues.

Please note that the URC0 draft (draft-ietf-uri-urc-trivial-00) describes a
URC0 response as a list of URLs, *each of which can have metainformation*.
That's much more than "a set of URLs".

Further, the URLs are not equivalent: they would not all "do as the
identifier of the resource." A URC can be for a multi-volume work. For
example, one URC0-style URC for an encyclopedia could contain one URL for
each volume. In this case, the metainformation for each URL would become
quite important, no?

>So in conclusion, I am suggesting we need a new name for the concept
>of accessing resources.  This is not a URN, and not necessarily a
>single URL, and not as much as general metadata.

I'm not sure why it is "not as much as general metadata". If the metadata
is easy to ignore, why not include it for those who want to see it? Many
people (myself included) find metainformation very valuable when deciding
whether or not to access a resource (particularly one that may cost money
or time). It sounds like you're proposing a "list of URLs" kind of idea,
but I see no reason not to let publishers add metadata to such a list if it
doesn't get in the way of the people who only want the location-type
information.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing