From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199409271845.OAA24807@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: URC vs IAFA Templates
To: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 14:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.05.9409271511.B3780-a100000@suna> from "Jon P. Knight" at Sep 27, 94 04:21:58 pm
Jon P. Knight said this:
> Am I right in thinking that there may be some mileage in trying to bring
> IAFA templates and URCs together? I see that in October last year there
> was some discussion of this (see the thread starting with
> <URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/archive/uri-93q4.messages/296.html>) but
> did this reach any conclusions? As the IAFA templates are now much firmer
> and the URL/URN documents are more or less out of the way, would now be a
> good time to start thinking about this again? Or have things moved on as
> far as URCs are concerned and I've missed them?
No. You are basically correct. _I_ think that the IAFA templates
are an exellect starting point for URC element names. Hell, when you
really get down to it an IAFA template is really just a URC. The
only additional requirment that URCs have is the need for more but
still simple structure and support for URNs and URLs.
-MM
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html"> <ADDRESS>Michael Mealling</ADDRESS> <ADDRESS>michael.mealling@oit.gatech.edu</ADDRESS></A>