Message-Id: <9310291614.AA03892@merit.edu>
To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
From: "Fred Swartz" <fred.swartz@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Single protocol for UR*?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Oct 1993 22:30:10 EDT."
<9310290230.AA05002@expresso.bunyip.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 12:14:27 -0400
> From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
...
>We released the first draft of _our_ server a couple of
>months ago, with full source, as have a couple of other
>people. We support the basic protocol, although not all the
>options, nor do we do centroids (yet). We use a modified
>WAIS search engine which allows separate attribute and
>value searches.
I like the idea of using the whois++ protocol (at least I assume so,
I'll have to look at it when I have time) , BUT I'd like the URN
protocol to be only a _subset_ of whois++. A conforming URN server
would then only require support for those operations which are relevant
to URNs. Full whois++ servers would naturally be conformant. This may
seem like a small point, but I think it may be important in the
future.
...
>There is a write option in WHOIS++ but if someone wanted
>to put in a record in _our_ server, it would be done by
>editing the file of templates and then reindexing the file
>with the wais indexer. Still, this is an implementation
>issue, not a limitation of the protocol, which does
>support writes as an option.
It's probably too early to discuss the protocol details,
but it should support messages saying "Add/remove
URL x for URN y". This may not be relevant in your more
controlled environment, but it's necessary for an environment
where services are very dynamic. It also raises some
permission issues.
>proposal, this may all come together faster than I thought.
>
>Wow!
ditto. -- Fred (fred.swartz@merit.edu)