- From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:43:56 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 23 June 1995 13:46:49 UTC