Re: [urn] Important URI-related topic: draft-ietf-urnbis-urns-are-not-uris

[[e-mail] (Henry S. Thompson)]

John C Klensin writes:

> Barry (and Andrew),
>
> Thanks.  I really hope we can get this process moving forward.
>
> I had a couple of interesting, but necessarily incomplete, f2f
> discussions this week.  I am going to need to think more about
> the issues at their core before commenting further, but it is
> increasingly clear to me that, when we say "URN" or make any of
> the distinctions about, e.g., naming and location that have gone
> on here, we trigger very different and almost independent
> discussions.  

> . . .

> There are communities out there have have (at least in their beliefs
> and often based on decades or centuries of experience) real
> requirements for real functionality.

I have a great deal of respect for the Information Science community,
particularly the practitioners.  I'd welcome a summary from you of
what you take their requirements to be (or a pointer to one of your
earlier messages where you have already provided one).

Thanks,

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]