From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199409281550.LAA03048@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: URC vs IAFA Templates
To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 11:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199409272054.OAA28139@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov> from "rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov" at Sep 27, 94 02:54:23 pm
rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov said this:
> > Am I right in thinking that there may be some mileage in trying to bring
> > IAFA templates and URCs together?
>
> This is a good question that immediately takes us to the heart of
> ongoing efforts for the URC service.
>
> Michael Mealling has been working very hard on the URC service. He favors
> using whois++ as the basis for the URC service. There is a strong tie
> between whois++ and the IAFA template. Check out the thread beginning with
> <URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/archive/uri-94q3.messages/21.html> to
> see Michael's work.
>
> I am developing a different possible representation for URC information.
> I would like it to be highly compatible with the IAFA templates, but
> do not wish to use IAFA templates for a few reasons:
Just a caveat to what I said about IAFA earlier. I think IAFA is a good
starting point for _element names_. I don't think all of the IAFA specs
are appropriate for all aspects of URCs. Suffice it to say that while
URCs and IAFA are similiar in appearance I would not claim that one
can come from the other. I would simply suggest that the IAFA documents
would be 'suggested reading' when discussing URCs....
So I completely agree with you, Ron. IAFA is a good starting point but
the finish line is a good ways off.....
-MM
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html"> <ADDRESS>Michael Mealling</ADDRESS> <ADDRESS>michael.mealling@oit.gatech.edu</ADDRESS></A>