Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful

weibel@oclc.org
Tue, 27 Jun 1995 17:17:09 -0400


From: weibel@oclc.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 17:17:09 -0400
Message-Id: <199506272117.RAA00456@ws02-00.rsch.oclc.org>
To: sollins@lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: URN Resolution Paths Considered Harmful
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

I was in the midst of responding to Karen and Mark's concern when Dan's
remarks appeared in my mailer.  Yeah... what he said.

Perhaps this is, as much as anything, a function of the complementarity
of the various proposals, rather than their differences?

For the record, the  URN Services proposal does *NOT* embed a
resolution path in the URN. The service is the service.  The URN is the
URN.  The RP is the RP (we're changing the name of it in the new I-D to
ORP... Optional Resolution Path to emphasize that it is not a necessary
component).    These are each distinct components of a complete service
request.

If a client can specify a preferred resolution path, as has been
endorsed by many here, is it reasonable to preclude the possibility
that a site or author might also have reasons to specify an ORP?  As
Karen said earlier... we should not be unnecessarily restrictive.

We are about to submit a revision of the proposal that we hope
clarifies and improves some aspects of the first version.  We are
grateful for the wealth of careful criticism that has helped to
improve  the proposal).  Thanks very much to all who have invested
their time and insights.  I hope some will have the time and patience
to do another round.

 
The OCLC URI Team

Keith Shafer  shafer@oclc.org
Vince Tkac    tkac@oclc.org
Eric Miller   emiller@oclc.org
Stu Weibel    weibel@oclc.org