- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:05:47 -0400
- To: "Mike Taylor" <mike@indexdata.com>
- Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
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