Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Michael Mealling (michael@bailey.dscga.com)
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:56:57 -0500 (EST)


From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Message-Id: <199710271356.IAA13768@bailey.dscga.com>
Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.971027110940.245l-100000@enoshima.ifi.unizh.ch> from "[Martin J. D_rst]" at "Oct 27, 97 11:20:05 am"
To: mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?=)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:56:57 -0500 (EST)
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, michaelm@rwhois.net, masinter@parc.xerox.com,

[Martin J. D_rst] said this:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> > So the question is, does W3C:
> > 
> > a) define the term "URIs" to be (essentially) "the set of 
> > resource identifiers that we might want to use in HTML", or
> 
> Probably it shouldn't, because of URCs 
> 

Being one of the primary document authors and advocates for URCs I can
probably safely say that the odds of URCs progressing are very slim.
The RDF and the Warwick Framework have addressed most of the concepts
and concerns that Ron and I had when we talked about them. Thus we 
probably shouldn't be considering it as a reason for making URI a much
more inclusive concept. There are other much better identifies for
that purpose.

If others think that URCs are still valuable and need work please let
me know outside of this thread.

> and stuff.

It's the "and stuff" that I'm concerned about. I really think the
'net needs Compuserve's "go <keyword>" equivalent. That would make
a very good URI.

-MM

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	| 505 Huntmar Park Drive       | Phone:  (703)742-0400
Software Engineer	| Herndon, VA 22070	       | Fax:    (703)742-9552
Network Solutions	| <URL:http://www.netsol.com>  | michaelm@rwhois.net