Re: date in URN

[ Larry wrote (I hope :-) ]

} >>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 1995 08:06:44 -0700, 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