Fw: State of play wrt RFC 2056

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fw: State of play wrt RFC 2056

ray denenberg

I would like to hear from anyone who can share experience with the
implementation and/or use of  Z39.50 URLs.  (See
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2056.html)

The W3C Technical Architecture Committee is studying the tradeoffs  between
http: and non http: URI schemes for identifiers, and contacted me (as one of
the RFC editors).

What software uses one or both of these URLs? What if any plugins support
them? Proxies?

Thanks.

--Ray


----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry S. Thompson" <[hidden email]>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "John A. Kunze" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: State of play wrt RFC 2056


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:

> Hi Henry - These URLs were never widely used but there were always a few
> implementations that claimed to use them. The Z39.50 community is still
> quite active, and I will poll everyone to get a better idea of the current
> state.
>
> Before I do, I want to be able to say what is the purpose of asking them?
If
> it turns out that nobody is using them then is the idea to obsolete them?

No, not at all -- we have no power or authority to do so, nor any
particular inclination.

As you know, I'm one of the editors of a long-running TAG effort to
get clear about what the tradeoffs are between http: and (choose one:
new URN namespace; new URI scheme) for persistent identifiers, and as
part of that I'm doing a quick survey of the fate of some earlier
proposals in this space.  When reading the RFC and using Google don't
turn up any definitive evidence, I've been sending emails like this
one to the named contacts from the RFC.

Thanks,

ht
- -- Original Message
I'm doing a trawl through URI schemes as part of my TAG work -- your
names are on this RFC, wrt the z39.50r and z39.50s URI schemes -- a
quick wander through net space suggests that although z39.50 as such
is alive (and well?), the URI schemes are not being promoted, and
there are not implementations (e.g. plugins) or proxies available for
use with them -- is that indeed that case?

Thanks,

ht

 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: [hidden email]
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged
spam]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fw: State of play wrt RFC 2056

Mike Taylor-10

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
 > I would like to hear from anyone who can share experience with the
 > implementation and/or use of  Z39.50 URLs.  (See
 > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2056.html)
 >
 > The W3C Technical Architecture Committee is studying the tradeoffs
 > between http: and non http: URI schemes for identifiers, and
 > contacted me (as one of the RFC editors).

But the z39.50s: and z39.50r: URI schemes are very explicitly
locations -- even the title of the RFC (Uniform Resource Locators for
Z39.50) states that.  In other words, their whole purpose is to be
actionable, and they are not intended to be used as identifiers.

 _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[hidden email]>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Although robust enough for general use, adventures into the
         esoteric periphery of the C shell may reveal unexpected quirks"
         -- csh(1) manual, SunOS 4.1.1




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of play wrt RFC 2056

ray denenberg

Yes I didn't mean to distinguish identifier from locator, but just http vs.
non-http scheme.   The z3950 URLs are explicitly URLs and nobody is trying
make them otherwise.

The term "identifier" is often used loosely as a superclass of locator. (Or
put another way, "locator" is loosely considered a subclass of "identifier".
In other words, a URL is a URI, and  a URI is by definition an identifier.)
That's why I often use "pure identifier" when I want to emphasize the
distinction.

--Ray


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <[hidden email]>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: Fw: State of play wrt RFC 2056


> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
>  > I would like to hear from anyone who can share experience with the
>  > implementation and/or use of  Z39.50 URLs.  (See
>  > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2056.html)
>  >
>  > The W3C Technical Architecture Committee is studying the tradeoffs
>  > between http: and non http: URI schemes for identifiers, and
>  > contacted me (as one of the RFC editors).
>
> But the z39.50s: and z39.50r: URI schemes are very explicitly
> locations -- even the title of the RFC (Uniform Resource Locators for
> Z39.50) states that.  In other words, their whole purpose is to be
> actionable, and they are not intended to be used as identifiers.
>
>  _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[hidden email]>
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "Although robust enough for general use, adventures into the
> esoteric periphery of the C shell may reveal unexpected quirks"
> -- csh(1) manual, SunOS 4.1.1
>
>