- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 06:35:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak)
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org, bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM
> I personally believe that the parallel almost universally drawn > between persistent identifiers and IP addresses is the single largest > obstacle to understanding this entire problem. In fact, document > resolution and domain name resolution are almost exactly opposite > problems. > > Domain name resolution is when I'm given one of a possibly unlimited > number of names for a machine and I need to find the one machine > that it refers to. > > Document resolution is when I'm given the name of a document and I > need to find one of its possibly unlimited number of copies. Not so. The W3C Addressing/Activity page describes how it is already possible for one domain name address to point to multiple IP addresses. So domain name resolution is *also* sometimes a many to one, one to one, or one to many mapping. That this process is currently difficult, and underused is a bug in DNS and DNS systems, not in the basic DNS problem space. So I don't see how these are opposites. In my message I should have said that every document has *at least* one actual location, instead of "every document has a location." > To think of "the document" as a thing bound to a location in the same > way that one thinks of "the machine" as a thing bound to a location > is, in my opinion, to commit a category error that hopelessly muddles > all further thought on the subject. The same is true of machines. If DNS does not allow me to set up a machine in Tokyo and Johannesburg with the same name a one in California, to serve the same information, then DNS (or DNS implementation) is incomplete. >The notion that there is One True > Copy of a text stopped being accurate with the invention of the > printing press, and we stopped referencing documents that way even > before then. The biggest problem with URLs is that in attempting to > implement hypertext they misrepresent the idea of text itself. I don't understand that at all. URLs point to *one of* the locations of a document. That isn't a misrepresentation, it is just under-powered technology. URNs will point to all of the locations of a document, but in the end, they will resolve to URLs, just as domain names resolve to a particular IP address (Paul ducks) of potentially many that may be bound to a particular domain name. Am I still misunderstanding you? Paul Prescod
Received on Thursday, 28 November 1996 06:35:26 UTC