Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

<hat type='AD'/>

On 12/22/11 3:17 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Juha Hakala wrote:
>>> In chapter 2 <query> is discussed in the bottom of page 9 & top of the
>>> page 10. We should refer here to RFC2483 (which specifies the resolution
>>> services) and use an example which is based on an existing service. The
>>> current example is a bit puzzling; for the time being it is not possible
>>> to specify the type of metadata wanted because no such service exists.
>>
>> Could you clarify whether your statement refers to that particular
>> example or to resolution services as such?
> 
> I refer to the example in 2141bis. But my comment also makes the point
> that we should revise the URN services in such a way that the user can
> specify the type of metadata desired (the point made above in parenthesis).
>>
>>> A note should be added, saying that the services nailed down in RFC2483
>>> are not sufficient. For instance, it is not possible to specify what
>>> type of metadata is needed (descriptive / administrative / structural)
>>> and in which format (there are plenty of formats for descriptive
>>> metadata, such as MARC21 or Dublin Core). RFC2483 refers to URC (Uniform
>>> Resource Characteristics) which was never implemented in practice. (As
>>> an aside, there are plenty of other reasons for updating that RFC.)
>>
>> Isn't that a matter for RFC 2483 (or 2483bis), not the core URN spec?
>> There is no necessary connection between URNs and resolution, I think.
> 
> There is no need to add the note if revision of RFC 2483 is added to the
> charter of the URNBIS WG ;-). 

As long as I'm the Area Director (which is only through IETF 83), this
WG will not add any new items to its charter because it is already
behind schedule on delivering the work for which it was chartered.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
http://stpeter.im/