Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 18:42:51 -0400
From: "Chris Weider" <clw@merit.edu>
Message-Id: <9310182242.AA25291@merit.edu>
To: drobison@library.Berkeley.EDU, hoymand@joe.uwex.edu
Subject: Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN
The naming authority can assign a single URN to an object in all its formats,
or can assign a URN to each format of the object. The choice is up to the
naming authority. There are two basic functionalities of the URN that Peter
and I have laid out in our paper; the first is to serve as a location-
independent (and access method independent) reference to a networked object.
The second, and less critical in my view, is allowing the removal of duplicate
objects in a list of objects returned by a resource location service. The
first functionality is maintained whether the publisher assigns format-
independent URNs or not; this functionality is also maintained whether multiple
naming authorities name an object. It's only the second function that's
obfuscated (I've always wanted to use that word in casual conversation :^) )
in the cases you mention.
Chris Weider
> From uri-request@mocha.bunyip.com Mon Oct 18 18:12:31 1993
> Received: from mocha.bunyip.com by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0)
> > id AA23465; Mon, 18 Oct 93 18:12:23 -0400
> Received: by mocha.bunyip.com (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
> id AA05802 on Mon, 18 Oct 93 13:54:08 -0400
> Received: from library.Berkeley.EDU by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
> id AA05798 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -furi-request uri-out) on Mon, 18 Oct 93 13:54:02 -0400
> Received: by library.Berkeley.EDU (4.1/1.31)
> > id AA05316; Mon, 18 Oct 93 10:56:03 PDT
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 10:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Robison <drobison@library.Berkeley.EDU>
> Subject: Re: URNs and Meta-Information - The Value of ISBN
> To: Dirk Herr-Hoyman <hoymand@joe.uwex.edu>
> Cc: uri@bunyip.com
> In-Reply-To: <9310181253.AA07991@joe.uwex.edu>
> Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9310181029.D4511-a100000@library.Berkeley.EDU>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Status: R
> As a Librarian and Internet Publisher, I see two potenetial problems
> with the current URI plan (as far as I have been able to follow the
> discussion). First, allowing the publisher to assign a single URI
> to an object in its many formats obfuscates the fact that different
> formats af a document (as well as different versions) have different
> meaning. Second, allowing multiple naming authorities (ID Authorities)
> the ability to name identical objects with different URIs seems to
> contradict the purpose of the URI in the first place. If "U" stands
> for Uniform, then a particular object, in all of its instances, should
> have the same URI.
> Or am I missing something?
> David F. W. Robison Internet: drobison@library.berkeley.edu
> Editor, Current Cites Bitnet: drobison@ucblibra
> Information Systems Instruction & Support Voice: (510)643-9494
> UC Berkeley Library Fax: (510)643-7891
> Berkeley, CA 94720