Re: root knowledge

Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Sat, 25 April 1992 19:18 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00610; 25 Apr 92 15:18 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25765; 25 Apr 92 15:23 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25755; 25 Apr 92 15:22 EDT
Received: from glenlivet.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.09139-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 25 Apr 1992 19:29:36 +0100
To: pays@faugeres.inria.fr
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: root knowledge
Phone: +44-71-380-7294
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 24 Apr 92 22:38:00 +0100. <704147880.3868.0@faugeres.inria.fr>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 19:28:14 +0100
Message-ID: <784.704226494@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
From: Steve Hardcastle-Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk>

I can see arguments for other means of distributing the knowledge information,
additional to the protocol described in RFC 1276.  Use of a file format is
one appraoch.   Another might be a stub server, whihc allows a standalone 
process to extract the information dynamically, which can be modified to 
allow output in a convenient format.

I don't understand why you are suggesting any new attributes and object
classes.  Can you explain why RFC 1276 does not suffice?


Steve