RE: [bt-spec] RE: Proposal to resolve URI issue

["WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" <jim_webber@hp.com>]

Alastair:

> So if URI is a new BTP URL then use as address (or first of 
> vector) else use first ordinary address. In any event use it 
> as a URN to identify transaction?

I'm easy. All I want for Christmas is a string that uniquely identifies a
transaction which it would nice if it could also be used to prod that
transaction. If my string can't be used to prod a transaction then I'm
prepared to have a look in the target additional information to get some
help.

If it's a BTP URI, OK. If it's a http URL, that's fine or whatever else. I
guess in the spec we can use "BTP URI" to mean a URI which given a
particular binding can be used to resolve to a transaction. Cool - it now
means we don't have to faff around with handles and identifiers and
addresses and all the rest of it.

Jim