Re: URNs: syntax and registries

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
• Previous message: Mirsad Todorovac: "Proposition on advanced URL features (Request for comments)"
• Maybe in reply to: William Y. Arms: "URNs: syntax and registries"
• Next in thread: William Y. Arms: "Re: URNs: syntax and registries"

Message-Id: <199511272132.QAA17351@info.cren.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:35:59 +0100
To: "William Y. Arms" <warms@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
From: conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)
Subject: Re: URNs: syntax and registries
Cc: uri@bunyip.com

Bill,
  I find your proposal to be very appealing, but I have a concern:  The
idea of explicitly naming a Naming Authority, which you've eliminated in
favor of explicitly naming a Naming Scheme.  Now, the Naming Scheme may
correspond closely to the Naming Authority, but I believe that it might
also encompass multiple naming authorities.
  In the latter case, is it not necessary for the r-name to specify the
Naming Authority in order to ensure that the r-name is unique?

Jim

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
• Previous message: Mirsad Todorovac: "Proposition on advanced URL features (Request for comments)"
• Maybe in reply to: William Y. Arms: "URNs: syntax and registries"
• Next in thread: William Y. Arms: "Re: URNs: syntax and registries"