Re: Common objects

Brian Behlendorf ([email protected])
Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:18:11 -0700 (PDT)


On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Matthew Elvey wrote:
> I would like to add that I thing the whole concept of something like
> http://vrml.com/eating/container/serving/RedTeapot.wrl, where this is
> the canonical, centralized location for The Red Teapot is repulsive.
> The Internet (the main driving force behind VRML, IMO) is supposed to be
> decentralized, and NOT fee for service based. I (we, I hope) DO want a
> system where VRML.com can go down and it will be all right.

Absolutely. "http://vrml.com/" is the substitution for
a naming service - it just another name, it does not mean that the object
it names has to be pulled from *one* machine. "vrml.com" or "vrml.org"
or "vrml.w3.org" would actually be a virtual web site dispersed very
widely over the net, through CDROM caches, through proxy servers around
the world, etc. A reference set might live on a particular collection of
machines, but it can be engineered to not collapse when a machine needs
to reboot.

> A VIRTUAL
> "dependable registry" can be achieved without recourse to a centralized
> (almost certainly fee-based) "dependable registry".com!

Why "certainly"? There is room for both commercial and public objects
here.

I think we can agree that appending an actual hostname to an object's
name is a medium-term (by short-term I mean two years or so) solution to
the problem of widespread, commonly used objects, and something akin to
USENET newsgroup-style organization and distribution might be more
lasting. But until there is a clear URN-based solution, caching and
URL's will get us very, very far.

Brian

p.s. - rumors abound that the Internic will soon start charging fees for
DNS registration....

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
[email protected] [email protected] http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/