Re: date in URN

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:43:56 -0400


Message-Id: <9506231743.AA15468@expresso.bunyip.com>
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:43:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: Larry Masinter's message as of Jun 23,  8:11
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: date in URN
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

[ Larry wrote (I hope :-) ]

} >>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:06:44 -0700, peterd@bunyip.com said:
} > Larry Masinter wrote:
} > |
} > |>The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that if URNs are to be as
} > |>persistent as possible, that they should be numeric (or alphanumeric codes
} > |>like the LoC numbers or British/Canadian postal code system).  If you use
} > |>human-readable names like "proper" or "ibm" people will get emotional and/or
} > |>possessive about them, making it much harder to prevent the URNs containing
} > |>them from changing over time.
} 
} but actually, I didn't write that, even though I think there is a
} serious issue of longevity of undated human-readable names.

Sorry about that. I clipped that paragraph from another
posting, and it obviously contained a quote of a quote.
The general suggestion that we consider a "human readible"
portion and a "machine readible" portion stands.


					- peterd

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ...there is reason to hope that the machines will use us kindly, for
  their existance will be in a great measure dependent on ours; they will
  rule us with a rod of iron, but they will not eat us...

                                               - Samuel Butler, 1872
------------------------------------------------------------------------------