RE: re "bizcodes"

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by "Nieman, Scott"
>
David, if you think the URN is insufficient, we probably could use a pros/
cons analysis between Bizcodes and URNs (ideally in a table format).  I
want
to keep an open mind - yet I do see from the IEFT site,there has been a lot
of work going on regarding unique identification.

Terry, I believe we were discussing rfc 2611 and the syntax 2141.  It was
not a very detailed dicussion and perhaps we could have done a better job
documenting this.

I want to nail this down sooner than later.  This is critical.

Scott

<<<<<<<<<<<<

OK Scott - I'm definately on this.  Terry and I discussed URN v Bizcode
some
time back - so I'll revisit my mails on that.

As you note there is both functional overlap and functional divergence.

As I noted to Bob yesterday - I'm now working on some actual XML for the
Bizcode mechanism - so I'll head there first in lieu of the feature set
x-ref.

That should then allow us to exactly review the alignment needed to tie
the URN and Bizcode together.  I also looked at the Standford RDF stuff
just
now and there's tie in there too, where the RDF can also reference the
Bizcode.

Enough said - I'll post something soonest.  Probably early next week now
as I'm in Vanocuver next couple of days, then its the Mermorial Day
break...

BTW - Duane noted this came up on the Tech Arch conference call today -
so they are also looking at this same issue set.  Maybe I'll just cancel
sleep
for next few days!

Thanks, DW.