Date: 9 Feb 94 16:52 +0500
From: "P. Desjardins" <Desjardins@citix400.doc.ca>
To: <sollins@zippy.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <1310*Desjardins@citix400.doc.ca>
Subject: Re: URN functional spec
Here are my comments on the document "Specification of Uniform Resource
Names", DRAFT, Feb. 8, 1994
On sameness...
I just need to validate my interpretation of the statement describing this
functional requirement...
- sameness of resource names (URNs) will imply "sameness" of the
resources (is that concept defined anywhere?)
- sameness verification involves a string (URN representation)
equality test -- i.e. URN resolution into an URL should not be
required or rather IS not required
On scalability...
In the "...design decisions..." section, bullet #2, you say: "Scalability
implies that a scheme for devising names may be scalable both at its
terminators as well as within the structure". Am I correct in assuming that
when you talk about terminators and structure you are refering to the name
space resulting from a given name generation scheme?
Bullets #2 and #3 of that same section seem to say roughly the same thing.
On resolution...
In the statement for this functional requirement, you say: "...To be more
specific, for URNs that have corresponding URLs,...". To me this leaves
room for URNs that have no corresponding URLs; is that the case?
Further, bullet #4 in the "design decisions" section it is said that "Naming
authorities should guarantee that somewhere, somehow, there is a mapping (or
the potential for a mapping) to one or more URLs". I do not quite understand
the implications of having to guarantee the "potential for a mapping". All
this feels like an upgraded requirement...
Best regards!
Pierre
==================
---
Pierre Desjardins | Desjardins@citi.doc.CA
CITI-Industry Canada | Center for Information Technology Innovation
1575 Chomedey blvd |
Laval, Quebec | +1 (514) 973 5820 (voice)
Canada H7V 2X2 | +1 (514) 973 5757 (facsimile)
---