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

Roy T. Fielding said this:
> One of the nice things about being out with a cold for three days
> is you get to see the tail end of these conversations before being
> able to reply.

Nice to hear from you. I was beginning to wonder where you were these days!

I just had to quible on one of your points. The rest are old arguments
that we both know by heart.

> Please note that the "L" in "URL" represents "Locator", not "Location".
> Any naming scheme that requires there exist some mechanism for resolution,
> whether or not the mechanism is currently in operation, changes over time,
> or subject to multiple levels of indirection, is a locator.

URNs never required a mechanism for resolution.

> There do exist names that are not locators, but those names are not URNs.

Actually, unless the documents have changed the design was that the URN
need not have a resolution method. The design was that URNs be defined without 
ever mentioning a resolution mechansim. Resolution mechanisms were proposed
but they were seperate documents that had no bearing on the identifiers
themsevles. The idea was to make all URNs into names that are not
locators.

E.g. the entire point was that URNs only do one thing: name something.
So in that sense they are not Locators. They are Identifiers.

If you define a seperate resolution mechanism and use it to find
things that claim to have that name then you might have a Locator but
that idea applies not to the Identifier but to what your are using some
resolution/database lookup process for.

I'll shutup now...

-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

Received on Monday, 27 October 1997 22:54:45 UTC