To: hoymand@gate.net
In-Reply-To: hoymand@gate.net's message of Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:15:33 -0700 <94Apr26.091545pdt.2767@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: Yet more URI/URC
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <94Apr26.093820pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:38:13 PDT
> David, along with this requirement, there is one to provide a *minimal*
> set of meta-data about a resource to aid in the determination of whether to
> retrieve or not. This would include such attributes as size, format, cost,
> language. A location resolution service is primary, certainly, but these
> other attributes are right behind it.
I think this is a useful discussion. Some protocols (http in
particular) provide a mechanism to find information about size,
format, cost, and language when you have located the resource.
Other protocols (ftp in particular) have no such mechanism currently
(although IAFA information might provide it).
I want to consider the position that we abandon any requirement for an
independent service that provides meta-data that isn't associated with
a particular location of a resource.
In principle, it would be nice to have such a beast, but in practice,
it is impractical and not implementable, which is why we're going
around in circles.