Message-Id: <9309160532.AA13528@thud.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
Subject: Re: URN single or multiple variants
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Sep 1993 18:04:47 GMT."
<CDEq80.nn@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 01:32:55 -0400
Mitra writes...
> a) we assign a single URN to this (and pass it around with
> attribute information to distinguish the variant to choose) or
>
> b) assign a URN to each of the variants, with the attribute information
> telling us about the document we have.
>
> I believe we consensed on (a) because it allows us to present users with
> a choice of variants. If this is not the case, then we need a decision soon
> because it fundamentally affects the design of information systems using
> URN's.
(a) seems like the wrong place to do this. if you do (a) you can't cache
the contents of URNs.
I think the variant forms should show up when searching for an object
(and then the search can also specify which kinds of object to return)...
The result of a search can always include pointers to "similar" objects.
So (b) seems like the best choice in the long run.
(or perhaps someone can explain why it is otherwise?)
Keith Moore