Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree
Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com> Mon, 30 November 1992 17:23 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us 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 kona.cc.mcgill.ca (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 kona.cc.mcgill.ca 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 expresso.cc.mcgill.ca (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-1.0) id AA05112; Mon, 30 Nov 92 10:30:46 EST
Message-Id: <9211301530.AA05112@expresso.cc.mcgill.ca>
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 <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 15:30:45 -0000
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 <iafa-request@kona.cc.mcgill.ca>, timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree
Cc: Ton Verschuren <Ton.Verschuren@surfnet.nl>, eurogopher@ebone.net, gvl@unt.edu, iafa@cc.mcgill.ca, jkrey@isi.edu
[ 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 --
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Anders Gillner
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Tim Berners-Lee
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Tony Barry
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Tony Barry
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Reinhard Doelz
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Peter Deutsch
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Anders Gillner
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Billy Barron, VAX/Unix Systems Manager
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Billy Barron, VAX/Unix Systems Manager
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Billy Barron, VAX/Unix Systems Manager
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Tony Barry
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Tony Barry
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Jill.Foster
- Update on the Gopher subject list proposal Ton Verschuren
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Alan Emtage
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Anders Gillner
- Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree Alan Emtage