Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree

Peter Deutsch <> Mon, 30 November 1992 17:23 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06663; 30 Nov 92 12:23 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06659; 30 Nov 92 12:23 EST
Received: from kona.CC.McGill.CA by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07103; 30 Nov 92 12:24 EST
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA25502 on Mon, 30 Nov 92 10:38:19 -0500
Received: from expresso.CC.McGill.CA by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA25490 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Mon, 30 Nov 92 10:37:51 -0500
Received: by (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-1.0) id AA05112; Mon, 30 Nov 92 10:30:46 EST
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: Tony Barry's message as of Nov 30, 16:15
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Peter Deutsch <>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 15:30:45 GMT-0:02
In-Reply-To: Tony Barry's message as of Nov 30, 16:15
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5.6 6/30/89)
To: Tony Barry <>,
Subject: Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree
Cc: Ton Verschuren <>,,,,

[ you wrote: ]

[* good stuff about multiple views deleted *]

.  .  .
> >then in fact only the top level of the tree will be different,
> >perhaps all the bottom trees will be in common.
> All trees will have the same leaves after all ;-)

Yes, but we should keep in mind that different systems can
access the same information through multiple leaves. For
example, there are now a number of places that have both
an anonymous FTP hierarchy and a Gopher hierarchy, both
serving the same set of files. This has impact on schemes
for naming and resource discovery and leads us back
(again!) to the need for URNs/URLs, etc.

For those that missed it, the last IETF had the first
gathering of the "Uniform Resource Identifier Working
Group". This group is supposed to work on issues related
to resource naming, standardizing resource locators and
names, etc. In addition, the (coalition for Networked
Information (CNI) conference was held nearby the same week
and a number of us "cross-polinated" between the two
groups. A meeting was held with teh Library of Congress
MARC people, various IETF-related system developers and
other interested parties and work continues apace.
Hopefully the minutes will come out in the next week or so.

Although slightly tangent to this thread, some little
associative memory bell tinkled and I thought I'd mention
it. I'm away from my notes, so I don't have the address of
the corresponding mailing list, but if someone is
interested and doesn't have it, drop me a line and I'll
dig it out.

				- peterd