Message-Id: <9404300145.AA13893@expresso.bunyip.com>
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 21:45:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: Dirk Herr-Hoyman's message as of Apr 26, 13:25
To: hoymand@gate.net (Dirk Herr-Hoyman),
Subject: Re: Yet more URI/URC
[ Dirk wrote: ]
. . .
> Ok,there's the rub, Michael. You have to know which attributes to ask for.
Actually, in WHOIS++ you can request a list of supported
templates or a blank template of any type. This would give
you the list for a particular type without knowing a
priori what's in them.
> That's going to change. What I is suggesting is that we create a
> convention whereby there is a template called minimal (for the sake of
> argument) and the URC service puts in it the elements it wants. Maybe it's
> not hard to do what you are showing us and maybe it can be hidden. But,
> what I don't want to see is a situation where clients have to ask for the
> entire URC, if we have folks creating large URCs.
I'm still not 100 percent clear on who will be using URCs
and when. In fact, here's a radical thought - are we all
that sure that URN->URC dereferencing will happen in our
new system at all?
Maybe this is going to be something that is done back in
conventional library catalogue systems jazzed up to carry
additional records and with an extra field to specify the
URN?
I certainly see the need for URN->URL dereferencing but
I'm beginning to wonder if (heretic!) all we need is to
add the URN as another field in all those existing library
catalogue systems that are out there now?
Naaah.... ;-)
- peterd
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do thay got, a whole lot of sand? We got a hot crustacean band!
Each little clam here, know how to jam here! Under the Sea!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------