Document Naming

This is probably the most crucial aspect of design and standardization in an open hypertext system. It concerns the syntax of a name by which a document or part of a document (an anchor) is referenced from anywhere else in the world.

As many protocols are currently used for information retrieval, the address must be capable of encompassing many protocols, access methods or, indeed, naming schemes.

The WWW scheme uses a prefix to give the addressing sub-scheme, and then a syntax dependent on the prefix used, in order to be open to any new naming systems.

Name or Address, or Identifier?

Conventionally, a "name" has tended to mean a logical way of referring to an object in some abstract name space, while the term "address" has been used for something which specifies the physical location. The term "unique identifier" generally referred to a name which was guaranteed to be unique but had little significance as regards the logical name or physical address. A name server was used to convert names or unique identifiers into addresses.

With wide-area distributed systems, this distinction blurs. Locally, things which at first look like physical addresses develop more and more levels of translation, so that they cease to give the actual location of the object. At the same time, a logical name or a unique identifier must contain some information which allows the name server to know where to start looking. In a global context, for example "1237159242346244234232342342423468762342368" might well be unique, but it contains insufficient (apparent) structure for a name server to look it up. The name "" has a structure which allows a search to be made in several stages. In fact, practical systems using unique identifiers generally hide within them some clues for the name server, such as a node name.

A hypertext link to a document ought to be specified using the most logical name as opposed to a physical address. This is (almost) the only way of getting over the problem of documents being physically moved. As the naming scheme becomes more abstract, resolving the name becomes less of a simple look-up and more of a search.

One expects in practice the translation of a document name taking several stages as the name becomes less abstract and more physical.


Some document reference formats contain "hints" to the reader about the document, such as server availability, copyright status, last known physical address and data formats. It is very important not to confuse these with the document's name, as they have a shorter lifetime than the document.


The X500 directory service protocol defines an abstract name space which is hierarchical. It allows objects such as organizations, people, and documents to be arranged in a tree. Whereas the hierarchical structure might make it difficult to decide in which of two locations to put an object (it's not hypertext), this does allow a unique name to be given for anything in the tree. X500 functionally seems to meet the needs of the logical name space in a wide-area hypertext system. Implementations are somewhat rare at the moment of writing, so it cannot be assumed as a general infrastructure.

If this direction is chosen for naming, it still leaves open the question of the format of the address into which a document name will be translated. This must also be left as open-ended as the set of protocols. _________________________________________________________________

Tim BL