From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <9503241229.ZM21805@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 12:29:33 -0700 To: email@example.com Subject: revised URC scenarios draft I have submitted a revised version of the draft "URC Scenarios and Requirements" to the Internet Drafts editors. Rather than clot the list with the text, go to <URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/Scenarios/> to get text, PostScript, or LaTEX versions. What's different? Scenarios are divided into User, Provider, and (new) 3'rd Party scenarios. Searching, SOAPs, alternate locations go into 3'rd party. A new scenario about librarians developing a high quality URC also goes into the 3'rd party section. SOAPs has been modified slightly to indicate that it is a special case of a general annotation capability. A micro-scenario about using a less capable browser has been added, along with the resulting requirement that the URC server be able to emit the URC in multiple syntaxes. The first publishing scenario has been modified to show that there are going to be lots of ways to publish, different times to bind a URN to a resource, and sometimes multiple URNs assgned to a resource as a consequence of the manner in which publication is performed. Still to do - a proper job of figuring out who signs what if we want digital signatures to work when publishers, servers, etc. can all come and go. A better treatment of general annotations. Now it is time to go to fine meetings for my real job. :-( -- Ron Daniel Jr. email: firstname.lastname@example.org Advanced Computing Lab voice: (505) 665-0597 MS B-287 TA-3 Bldg. 2011 fax: (505) 665-4939 Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel/ Los Alamos, NM, 87545 tautology: "Conformity is very popular"