From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 16:00:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199507022000.QAA05704@beethoven.bunyip.com>
To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: UR Accessors
Again, apologies for the delay in participating in this thread...
[From Daniel Laliberte's message:]
> Maybe we should call this new thing a URA, with "A" for "accessor".
> (Footnote: I have trouble with URAs being universal resource agents.
> Why are they not just "agents"? What do they have to do with
> resources. Agents probably ought to find their own umbrella anyway
> since they are even further removed from identifiers.)
I'll not dive into a full-fledged defence of URAs until I have
(re-)written a document that more people find communicative of the URA
concept, but for a different cut on why URAs are URIs, see the recent
thread on querying in URCs for a brief introduction to the concept of
formally-encapsulated actions as identifiers of resources -- where
resource is taken in the rather more inclusive sense than just
"files".
> done well in the interim. I like URA, for Universal Resource
> Accessor, but I am open to other names.
As an aside, I would like to think that a (pardon me) _weightier_ reason
will be required before the meaning of an acronym is undertaken in
this arena...!
Cheers!
Leslie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is a Usability Test" Leslie Daigle
leslie@bunyip.com
-- ThinkingCat Montreal, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------------