- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:59:24 +0900
- To: Larry Lannom <llannom@cnri.reston.va.us>
- Cc: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>, W3C URI List <uri@w3.org>, Norman Paskin <n.paskin@doi.org>, "Sun, Sam X." <ssun@cnri.reston.va.us>
Hello Larry, At 00/05/10 21:44 -0400, Larry Lannom wrote: > >Using http://handle.org/ or some such > >Right. In fact, that has been the case for some years now -- so this >handle (a DOI) > >10.1000/170 > >can be resolved using a proxy server such as > >http://hdl.handle.net/10.1000/170 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1000/170 or >http://hdl.loc.gov/10.1000/170 Interesting. >or in a URI-type syntax as > >hdl:10.1000/170 > >which uses the handle protocol directly and which is, not surprisingly, >more efficient for handle resolution, Why is it more efficient? Of course, if the above servers are run as simple proxies that just transform and forward the request, it gets slower, but it should also be possible to do a more coupled implementation that should not be slower. Please note that the DNS lookup overhead inherent in the HTTP protocol is also incurred for an urn solution, if DNS is used to find the resolver for the URN. >but of course requires software >such as a browser extension that understands it, as a URI. To the best >of our knowledge most handle resolution currently goes through one or >another proxy server. Why is there more than one? To share the load? It could be distributed rather easily on the dns level. Regards, Martin.
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2000 03:54:53 UTC