W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2000

RE: FYI -- draft ietf uri doc

From: Paskin, Norman (DOI-ELS) <n.paskin@doi.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:54:45 +0100
Message-ID: <97A4BBFAC1B9D211B2620008C71EF88102EA10DF@ELSOXFS12305>
To: "'Leslie Daigle'" <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, uri@w3.org
Two comments:

1.  I note that this is indeed an attempt to say what the current IETF
picture is.  As such, it clearly lacks a key component: the answer to the
question "what is a resource".  As the W3C RDF activity has found (in my
opinion), it is no longer sufficient to gloss over this by saying "whatever
you want".  It may indeed be necessary to allow it to be "whatever you want"
but there must be  some constraints if we are to build useful tools to deal
with resources: "whatever you want, but you say what it is as follows....so
that we can design tools which will do the following...."

Much the same discussion has been occurring outside the web space in the
world of ISO standards (ISBN, ISSN, etc), where there has been a discussion
(earlier this year) under the auspices of ISO TC 46 on the need for
descriptive information  about the resource identified by the ISO
identifier. 

2.  Despite Leslie's disclaimer, it already appears that we have an IETF
process in motion or proposed which will cover exactly the same ground as
the proposed W3C activity.  No objection if this gets things done, except if
we have to discuss every issue on two different lists at two different times
(three if I count the ISO discussion).

Norman

-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:leslie@thinkingcat.com]
Sent: 01 September 2000 19:30
To: uri@w3.org
Subject: FYI -- draft ietf uri doc


Hi all,

I've finally put my money where my mouth is, and put together a 
draft that (attempts to) outline the state of IETF documentation on
the URI standard.  This is in response to a number of queries I've
encountered specifically about the state of that collection of 
documents -- particularly from organizations that are not involved with
any IETF work (nor do they wish to be any more involved than simply
knowing what procedures they need to follow to _use_ URIs, schemes,
etc).

Note that the document does not attempt to catalogue any of the
existing URI schemes -- if nothing else, the IANA registry does
that.

Also, this is not meant to be in conflict with any W3C uri activity,
however that evolves.  It's an IETF document roadmap.

So, notwithstanding the fact that I hope to spend the weekend
away from my keyboard ;-)  comments welcomed & appreciated.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary... 
    ... or was that the other way around?"
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 4 September 2000 04:56:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC