home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Editor's Note: Minutes received 12/4/92
-
- CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
-
-
- Reported by Alan Emtage/Bunyip
-
- Minutes of the Uniform Resource Identifiers Working Group (URI)
-
- The Agenda for the first meeting of the URI Working Group was approved.
- The Charter for the Group was reviewed and approved. It was noted that
- the ``Goals and Milestones'' may need to be changed in the future
- depending on the progress in this very new area.
-
- Peter Deutsch/Bunyip who was initially named to co-Chair the Group
- resigned the position in order to follow a more activist role and avoid
- any potential conflict of interest. Jim Fullton/CNIDR was installed as
- new co-Chair. However before stepping down Peter took the opportunity
- to make a few personal observations and commitments:
-
-
- o Peter has offered to co-author an overview paper along with Chris
- Weider. This paper would propose a possible architecture to the
- Group describing the use and the form of the various Uniform
- Resource objects such as URI's (Uniform Resource Identifiers),
- URL's (Uniform Resource Locators) and URSN (Uniform Resource Serial
- Numbers) and how the would interoperate.
-
- o Peter gave a basic overview of his ideas about what the UR objects
- looked liked. By his definitions:
-
- - A URL identifies a particular object on the network and is
- composed of a named scheme (e.g., FTP, WAIS, Gopher) and
- information specific to that scheme. It was noted that this
- idea already exists in a similar form in the World Wide Web
- (WWW) system, and has been codified in a paper by Tim
- Berners-Lee/CERN.
- - A URSN can be broken down into a ``virtual user'' and an actual
- serial number. Related topics were the issue of the
- ``producer'' of an network object and the ``owner''; some
- possible schemes for implementation of the virtual user
- (whois++ handle, X.500) ; and what the serial number would
- looked like (possibly an MD5 checksum and other methods).
-
- It was decided in the interests of time that further discussions
- should be carried out on the mailing list.
-
-
- The paper currently titled ``Universal Resource Locators'' by Tim
- Berners-Lee was reviewed and the following comments were made:
-
-
- o The use of the term ``protocol'' in the document is ambiguous given
- the context of the IETF and should be replaced or more specifically
- defined.
-
- 1
-
-
-
-
-
- o The use of the term ``name'' was considered to be unclear and again
- should be clarified. It was suggested that it be removed and
- another term used in its place.
-
- o The document should be written as a ``standalone'' unit. However,
- the objects described therein should be viewed as part of a larger
- architecture and an explicit description of their purpose should be
- added. It was suggested that the document could be further
- generalized from a _perceived_ WWW bias.
-
- o The question of the ``partial form'' of the URL brought heated
- discussion between two factions: one which wanted the removal of
- the form altogether and one which suggested their continued
- existence with restrictions. Some consensus developed around the
- idea that partial forms could be used internally for individual
- information systems but should not be used when exchanged
- externally. It was decided that further discussion should occur on
- the mailing list.
-
- o Consensus was reached that the document should specifically state
- URLs are to be considered transient and should not be used in
- static objects (hardcopy documents, etc.). Their use as references
- should be specifically discouraged. Such references was considered
- to be in the domain of the URSN, whatever they ultimately look
- like.
-
- o The paper should describe the general scheme being proposed without
- reference to particular systems (other than as examples). All
- detailed descriptions of individual systems should be put in an
- appendix. It was decided that the most likely repository for the
- individual definitions would ultimately be the Internet Assigned
- Numbers Authority (IANA) but that the original document may propose
- the definitions for a basic range of services (such as FTP).
-
- o It was suggested by Thomas Hacker/UMich that to the OSF DCE DFS
- (Open Software Foundation Distributed Computing Environment
- Distributed File System).
-
- o Mitra/Pandora (mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us) proposed a ``fragment
- specifier'' scheme to be incorporated into the URL document. It
- was decided that detailed discussion of this was best left to the
- mailing list.
-
- o Other points were:
-
- - Some of the text and examples did not agree
- - The use of percentage signs should be reviewed on the mailing
- list.
- - Use of blank characters was again questioned.
-
- All were referred back to the mailing list for further discussion
-
-
- 2
-
-
-
-
-
- A discussion about URI's followed. The questions that were raised were:
-
-
- 1. Given the current definitions what _exactly_ does URI mean?
-
- o Alan Emtage suggested that they may be defined as URI = URL +
- URSN + ``Uniform Resource Representator'' (URR) since the
- current definitions of URL and URSN do not give sufficient
- information for a user/client to determine if in fact the
- information available is useful and that such things as
- filename extensions are not a reliable method of determining
- content format (and in the case of processes is meaningless).
- However he declined to be committed on what exactly these URR's
- would look like.
- o It was suggested that the concept of the ``URI'' may be defunct
- now since it as been decomposed into several constituent parts.
-
-
- 2. The proposal that John Kunze/UCBerkeley had made on the mailing
- list previously was briefly discussed and it was suggested that he
- and Clifford Lynch/UC co-author an alternate document to that
- produced by Peter Deutsch and Chris Weider, more from the
- perspective of the library community. John's proposal for access
- lists, descriptive fields, functional types and a ``UR Citation''
- were suggested as being better handled in detail on the mailing
- list.
-
- 3. In addition to the document describing the general UR system, Peter
- Deutsch and Chris Weider have agreed to co-author a paper proposing
- the structure of URSN's.
-
-
- Attendees
-
- Jules Aronson aronson@nlm.nih.gov
- Jodi-Ann Chu jodi@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
- Naomi Courter naomi@concert.net
- John Curran jcurran@bbn.com
- Peter Deutsch peterd@bunyip.com
- Alan Emtage bajan@bunyip.com
- Jill Foster jill.foster@newcastle.ac.uk
- Joan Gargano jcgargano@ucdavis.edu
- Thomas Hacker hacker@citi.umich.edu
- Deborah Hamilton debbie@qsun.att.com
- Alisa Hata hata@cac.washington.edu
- J. Paul Holbrook holbrook@cic.net
- Ole Jacobsen ole@interop.com
- Edward Krol e-krol@uiuc.edu
- John Kunze jak@violet.berkeley.edu
- Clifford Lynch calur@uccmvsa.ucop.edu
- Janet Marcisak jlm@ftp.com
- Michael Mealling michael@fantasy.gatech.edu
-
- 3
-
-
-
-
-
- Mitra mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us
- Charlotte Mooers mooers@nnsc.nsf.net
- Mark Needleman mhn@stubbs.ucop.edu
- Kate O'Mara kate@acfcluster.nyu.edu
- Pete Percival percival@indiana.edu
- Joyce K. Reynolds jkrey@isi.edu
- Bradley Rhoades bdrhoades@mail.mmmg.com
- Richard Rodgers rodgers@nlm.nih.gov
- Jennifer Sellers sellers@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov
- Jane Smith jds@jazz.concert.net
- Simon Spero simon_spero@unc.edu
- Craig Summerhill craig@cni.org
- Claudio Topolcic topolcic@cnri.reston.va.us
- Janet Vratny janet@apple.com
- Chris Weider clw@merit.edu
- Moira West mjw@cert.org
- Yung-Chao Yu yy@qsun.att.com
-
-
-
- 4
-