- From: Ken Holman <gkholman@microstar.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 09:42:30 -0500
- To: "'w3c-sgml'" <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
From: RE: Simple solution? Pub. Idents. vs URN. [Len Bullard] >What I hear Debbie, Jon, Ken and others saying is that the >FPI provides functionality they need, some of which, depends >on formal registry practices and SGML Open standards for >catalogs. Does this undo the URL? Does this preclude >the use of the URL? Do the URN and the FPI/catalog conflict? Speaking for myself, I need "client-side-resolved indirection", which SGML's established PUBLIC mechanism, with "some kind of resolution", provides. The benefits I described earlier of identifer uniqueness, persistence, management and portability are all aspects of successfully implemented and utilized client-side-resolved indirection. I'm concerned that the (I hope useful) discussion of the use of ISBNs and Jon's observation of trademark lawyers' habits has distracted the readers in this group from the essence of the service provided by PUBLIC identifiers. BTW, I too was not charged anything to obtain an ISBN Publisher's Prefix, and I perceive the two-level hierarchy to be the Publisher's Prefix followed by the publisher's own management of their number space (the two-component value of the prefix is a mixture of both regional and language issues). We have since established internal publishing (manuals, diskettes, etc.) on the ISBN system. In short, is see no benefit difference _to the end user_ between our "+//ISBN 1-55160" and Jon's "-//SUN::SUNSOFT" because in both cases the end user has the opportunity to implement their client-side indirection however they need to without impacting on the (assumed) sacrosanct SGML files. If this client-side-resolved indirection dereferences PUBLIC values to URLs or internet-resolved URN/URIs or absolute filename specifications or relative filename specifications or SQL queries or DMS copy-out procedures or JCL tape mount directives or even some future yet-to-be-determined-or-standardized query mechanism, the SGML files remain inviolable. Isn't this inviolability critically important to people who want to invest in their data for the long term? Certainly the SGML Open scheme has its benefits and features, but I agreed with Debbie that the minimum is a simple string comparison. If I choose to go beyond that with an SGML Open catalog, I can choose to do so without impacting on my marked up source. Then again, need XML establish the "environment" in which XML PUBLIC identifers are dereferenced? Is it in the scope of XML to go outside the syntax of the markup to specify any obligatory mechanism by which information in the markup is handled? Users of XML who wish to hardwire SYSTEM identifiers can still choose to do so; hopefully the XML exercize will teach people more about the benefits they can build into their markup, one of which could be the implementation of client-side-resolution of indirect PUBLIC identifiers. >James says the FPI is hard to implement. So, it is something >not everyone should be required to implement. But this seems >to be a system implementation restriction and I don't think >we are here to restrict implementors. Agreed. ......... Ken -- G. Ken Holman Tel: +1 613 596-CADE(2233) /\ /\ Chief Technology Officer Fax: +1 613 596-5934 \/ \/ Computer Microstar Software Ltd. WATS: 1 800 267-9975 /\ /\ Aided 3775 Richmond Road Mail: gkholman@microstar.com \/ \/ Document Nepean Ontario Info: cade@microstar.com /\ /\ Engineering CANADA K2H-5B7 Web: http://www.microstar.com \/ \/ -- 1605 Mardick Court, Box 266 Phone: +1 613 489-2987 Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 E-mail: gkholman@CanadaMail.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjHOimAAAAEEAK47HbDtZZB8hJBk+r9Zh7m7QxdFHTaz/m200QQ7J9XX4QYs h6hsuP6ZqBJXyLdmIVMEwR6Ry6oxjKMd6BRJ8OGScD89eIghgbrpMX+900NxM0x2 v3yWO9ki2gKRPrn4vlCXznnmcmsyke0G02T2LefXbgZHyVSqDSOLy8nwuN7dAAUR tClHLiBLZW4gSG9sbWFuIDxhYjk0NUBmcmVlbmV0LmNhcmxldG9uLmNhPg== =IN3T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 09:44:14 UTC