Re: State of play wrt RFC 2056

Yes I didn't mean to distinguish identifier from locator, but just http vs.
non-http scheme.   The z3950 URLs are explicitly URLs and nobody is trying
make them otherwise.

The term "identifier" is often used loosely as a superclass of locator. (Or
put another way, "locator" is loosely considered a subclass of "identifier".
In other words, a URL is a URI, and  a URI is by definition an identifier.)
That's why I often use "pure identifier" when I want to emphasize the
distinction.

--Ray


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Taylor" <mike@indexdata.com>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: Fw: State of play wrt RFC 2056


> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
>  > I would like to hear from anyone who can share experience with the
>  > implementation and/or use of  Z39.50 URLs.  (See
>  > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2056.html)
>  >
>  > The W3C Technical Architecture Committee is studying the tradeoffs
>  > between http: and non http: URI schemes for identifiers, and
>  > contacted me (as one of the RFC editors).
>
> But the z39.50s: and z39.50r: URI schemes are very explicitly
> locations -- even the title of the RFC (Uniform Resource Locators for
> Z39.50) states that.  In other words, their whole purpose is to be
> actionable, and they are not intended to be used as identifiers.
>
>  _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <mike@indexdata.com>
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "Although robust enough for general use, adventures into the
> esoteric periphery of the C shell may reveal unexpected quirks"
> -- csh(1) manual, SunOS 4.1.1
>
>

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 22:06:43 UTC