URC formats vs interfaces
Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu> Fri, 06 October 1995 00:21 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21690; 5 Oct 95 20:21 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21686; 5 Oct 95 20:21 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23669; 5 Oct 95 20:21 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id LAA15014 for uri-out; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 11:50:23 -0400
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA15007 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 11:50:16 -0400
Received: from newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA03101 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Thu, 5 Oct 95 11:50:04 -0400
Received: from void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (void.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.103.20]) by newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.6.11/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA27042; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:49:59 -0500
Received: by void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (4.1/NCSA-4.1) id AA11840; Thu, 5 Oct 95 10:49:16 CDT
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 10:49:16 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Message-Id: <9510051549.AA11840@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: URC formats vs interfaces
In-Reply-To: <9510041552.ZM971@whatthe.acl.lanl.gov>
References: <95Oct4.134325pdt.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com> <masinter@parc.xerox.com> <9510041552.ZM971@whatthe.acl.lanl.gov>
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
Ronald E. Daniel writes: > I have continued > to work on URCs, and have some stuff that I am about ready to > send to the URC list. People who want to see the rough notes > can take a look at http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URC/canonical.html Good. We are continuing on with URNs as well. We need a BOF for URNs at least. Who wants to arrange that? Regarding URCs and your canonical representation, that is certainly better than the N2 (conversion between representation pairs) alternative, but there is another alternative that should be considered also. Instead of returning data in any format, define an interface to the data. This alternative is somewhat the same since we could have multiple interfaces, and N2 interfaces between interfaces or a canonical interface. But at least an interface allows you to hide the actual format of actual data. An interface to the URC data would let you have access to it remotely, but whatever is actually sent to clients does have to be data in some particular format - so we never really avoid the data format problem. We can reduce the data format problem by sending only a few primitive data types. Another way to avoid data format problems is to return data as a black box along with code that interfaces to the data. But this actually makes the problem worse in some respects because the format of the code, and its semantics, and the environment for interpreting it would all need to be standardized too. Standardizing data format is the easy part, relative to standardizing the semantics of the data. I.e. what does each type of data mean, how do I interface to it, etc? So we never avoid the semantics issue either, but we have to start somewhere, and standardizing data format is a good place to start. Well enough rambling for this morning... dan
- Re: URN to URC resolution scenario Mitra
- Re: Library Standards and URIs Terry Allen
- Re: Library Standards and URIs Terry Allen
- Re: URC formats vs interfaces Ronald E. Daniel
- URC formats vs interfaces Daniel LaLiberte
- no child-of-URI groups at Dallas IETF? Larry Masinter
- Re: no child-of-URI groups at Dallas IETF? Ronald E. Daniel
- Re: html, http, urls and internationalisation Keld J|rn Simonsen
- Re: http charset labelling Larry Masinter
- Re: http charset labelling Keld J|rn Simonsen
- Re: http charset labelling Keld J|rn Simonsen
- Re: http charset labelling Larry Masinter
- Re: http charset labelling Keld J|rn Simonsen
- Re: http charset labelling Masataka Ohta
- Re: http charset labelling Gavin Nicol
- Re: http charset labelling Masataka Ohta
- Re: http charset labelling Gavin Nicol
- Re: http charset labelling Masataka Ohta
- Re: http charset labelling Gavin Nicol
- Re: http charset labelling Masataka Ohta
- Re: http charset labelling Masataka Ohta
- Re: http charset labelling Gavin Nicol
- Re: http charset labelling Gavin Nicol
- Re: http charset labelling Masataka Ohta
- Re: http charset labelling Gavin Nicol
- Re: 8 bit characters in DNS names (and URNs?) Keld J|rn Simonsen
- Re: Typeable characters Keld J|rn Simonsen
- Re: UTF-8 and URLs Keld J|rn Simonsen