Message-Id: <9305180509.AA01430@mocha.bunyip.com>
To: Richard W Wiggins <WIGGINS@msu.edu>
Subject: Re: URLs and URNs versus electronic citations
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 17 May 1993 23:40:07 -0400.
<9305180358.AA01369@mocha.bunyip.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:07:31 -0400
From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
--------
] From: Richard W Wiggins <WIGGINS@msu.edu>
] Subject: URLs and URNs versus electronic citations
] Date: Mon, 17 May 93 23:40:07 EDT
]
] It seems there are two entirely different goals/needs being discussed
] here: the need for unique naming schemes, and the need for a standard
] form for citing online resources.
Both are needed. We are not discussing citations (yet), but simply
unique naming schemes for network resources.
] Throughout this discussion the statement is often made that URLs and
] URNs are for machines only, and not to be used as citations. Yet we
] already see URLs used frequently in e-mail as pointers to documents on
] particular machines, obviously to be parsed by humans as they go grab
] the files. And Mosaic presents URLs to the user quite visibly while one
] navigates from document to document.
]
] These practices may not prove that URLs *ought* to be used for
] citations, but they do show that a need exists. With URLs, it is
] especially tempting to use them as citations, because they consist of a
] recognizable protocol/host/file_path combination.
Folks will be using URNs (and URLs) for citations since we lack any
standard for citations and lack the directory services necessary to
lookup URLs for a given resource. This will change over time, but
we need to recognize that the occasional use of URLs and URNs rules
out a non-textual encoding.
] If URNs are truly to
] be as arbitrary as ISBNs -- quick, anyone know who publisher 0-07 is? --
] then maybe it is reasonable not to expect them to be parsed and
] understood by humans. But if neither URLs nor URNs provide a sufficient
] standard citation, then a suggested form should be promoted in tandem
] with URLs and URNs.
Yes, it should be handled. It would be nice if we could work on URNs
first so that we'll have some elements with which to build the citation
data element.
With respect to the "readability" of URNs,
) From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
) To: Chris Weider <clw@merit.edu>
) cc: uri@bunyip.com
) Subject: Re: Internet Draft on URNs
)
) --------
) ]
) ] 3.2 What URNs are *not*
) ]
) ] URNs are not intended to be human-readable in the sense that a human could
) ] look at the URN and determine anything about the contents of the resource.
) ...
)
) I agree with the above, but note that _each_ naming authority may name its
) documents as it sees fit within the constraints of syntax. If people find
) the URNs of certain naming authorities functionally challenged, then I am
) confident that sufficient backpressure will exist on the naming authority
) to reevaluate its chosen naming methodology.
)
) Minor nit: "Naming Authority should assume that humans will never look at the
) contents of the URN to determine qualities of the resource..."
)
) We may want to add a note to the effect that Naming authorities should
) expect that _some_ folks will attempt to examine at the contents of the
) URN to attempt to determine origin of the resource, and that some
) classes of URNs may support this (e.g. URN:ietf.isoc.org::wg-uri-urn-00).
) While this is not a requirement of a URN, naming authorities should be
) aware of the preexisting expectation.
Please _do not_ place restrictions on how others name resources. We need to
have a common method for exchanging names, but that does not mean that all
names have to be "built" equal. Useful naming schemes will propogate, and
disfunctional ones will die out. To try and force the "right" usage without
experimentation is folly.
/John