[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Comments on Artifact ID requirements
Peter, Drummond, Dave, and Gabe - The OASIS Technical Advisory Board Quality Subcommittee (QSC) would like to set up a phone meeting with at least some of you to discuss the application and relevance of XRI to out ongoing Artifact Identification Requirements and included metadata in XHTML/HTML artifacts. Our next QSC meeting is October 14 2005 from 11:00am US Eastern time. Is there a time in that meeting that you could join us for perhaps 45 minutes? I know that at least one of you is on CET, and I don't know your other timezones. If other times would be preferable, please let me know and I'll work the the QSC to arrange. I will provide a caller-paid conference number. Thanks! bill cox Chair, OASIS TAB QSC wtcox@comcast.net +1 862 485 3696 cell Peter F Brown wrote: Any news or follow up on this? Regards, -Peter --- Peter F Brown Senior Expert ICT-Strategy Unit Austrian Federal Chancellery --- Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group --- T: +43.1.53115.6161 W: www.cio.gv.at No trees were cut down in the production of this message; many electrons were however severely agitated --- -----Original Message----- From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] Sent: 12 August 2005 21:42 To: 'William Cox' Cc: peter@justbrown.net; oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'Dave McAlpin'; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; 'James Bryce Clark' Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] Comments on Artifact ID requirements Bill, Thanks much for the offer. I just sent Jamie and Mary another note on a different topic that underscores why OASIS should look closely at XRI for its artifact identification. My biggest challenge right now is bandwidth - I'm booked pretty heavily for the next two weeks, although Thursday the 25th and the morning of Friday the 26th are possiblities. Starting the week after that it gets better. For the XRI TC's part I'm volunteering my co-chair Gabe Wachob and XRI Editor's Subcommittee chair Dave McAlpin (who I know is on vacation this week). So my recommendation would be to schedule a call about two weeks out and see who can make it at that time. I look forward to the discussion. Best, =Drummond -----Original Message----- From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 9:44 AM To: Drummond Reed Cc: peter@justbrown.net; oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'Dave McAlpin'; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; 'James Bryce Clark' Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Comments on Artifact ID requirements Drummond - I'm interested in such a discussion; I will also volunteer Mary (subject to Jamie and Mary's veto). Per the Member Review AIR WD 15.pdf document distributed with AIR WD15, #################### "7. This document specifies a set of Required Metadata for OASIS artifacts to be available in the document and/or associated metadata, and also as a basis for exposing selected metadata in the Artifact Identifier. Comments would be appreciated on the following plan for XHTML metadata in the next Working Draft, and would be inserted into section 5.5.2 and 5.5.3 (lines 438-450): Use the style of "Expressing Dublin Core in HTML/XHTML meta and link elements," Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Recommendation, November 30, 2003, http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/. The intent is to follow the style, but not to make normative reference to the Recommendation There will be one meta element per name-value pair. We may need to define an OASIS metadata namespace to use as a prefix for the metadata names. The compatibility for versions of HTML before XHTML 1.0 would parallel that for the DCMI Recommendation." #################### Your proposed discussion addresses closely related issues. When can we get together? This strikes me as a phone discussion at first. Thanks. bill cox Drummond Reed wrote:Although I just returned from an extended vacation (and must admit that I have not had time to review the Artifact ID requirements in depth yet), nonetheless the points Peter makes in this message are very good ones, and in fact are central to XRI (Extensible Resource Identifiers) specifications developed by the XRI TC (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri). XRIs extend (and are backwards compatible with) URI/IRI syntax and add features designed explicitly for abstract identification of resources -- and resolution into concrete representations of those resources -- followingtheprecise guidelines Peter describes. A further benefit is that XRIs standardize several of the key types of identifier metadata Peter enumerates (such as version, language, date --seethe XRI Metadata Specification V2 Committee Draft 01, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/11854/xri-metadata-V2 .0-cd-01.pdf). Lastly, the XRI 2.0 specifications include full support for HTTP proxy resolution so all XRI syntax and resolution capabilities can be deployed immediately using available HTTP infrastructure. A suggestion, then, is to arrange a meeting between the Artifact ID teamandthe XRI TC to discuss the requirements and see if XRI 2.0 can help OASIS solve its resource identification needs. Mary, Jamie - who should we contact about this? =Drummond ================ Drummond Reed Co-Chair, OASIS XRI & XDI TCs http://public.xdi.org/=Drummond.Reed -----Original Message----- From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 4:53 AM To: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [oasis-member-discuss] Comments on Artifact ID requirements Dear all: Whilst I appreciate that much effort and time has gone in to this draft recommendation, I am very uncomfortable with the proposals as they stand. I have only just had an opportunity to look the document through and compose some comments: possibly too little and too late. The TAB asks that comments and proposals be specific and concrete, so here goes: Proposal: Withdraw the working draft; rethink requirements for identification and addressing as distinct issues. Reason: There is a fundamental conceptual flaw in the proposals, and one which we unfortunately see all too often on the web, and is perpetuated by a similar conceptual flaw in the W3C's own thinking on the issue. This flaw is to confuse the identity and the address of an artifact, ultimately concluding that they are the same. The consequence of this flaw would be that the proposals, if applied, would irretrievably confuse and combine two important concepts that require to be considered as distinct in any coherent and lasting information architecture. Argument: There is little disagreement that it is useful to identify any given artifact. Giving it identity allows for the artifact to be cited,referencedand talked about in a manner such that there is no ambiguity as to its nature. Ambiguity can enter the picture, however, from the moment that an artifact is considered in a particular context: which version of the artifact? Which format? In which language? In sum, which "representation" [1]? The reality is that every combination of such factors (language, format, version, etc.) leads to a specific and unique artifact: sometimes it is useful to identify and reference such specific representations; other times it is more useful to reference and identify the "abstract" entity. The objective of the proposed requirements is essentailly to be able to reference, cite and link to only representations and not abstract entities, but there are two steps to such an approach which are unfortunately rolled into a single issue in the proposal: - firstly it is necessary to identify an artifact: to be sure that we are talking about the same "thing"; - secondly, it is necessary to dereference that identity *in context*. It is this second step that is often so unstable because too manycontextualissues are left implicit in the process of resolution (naming > addressing) whereas they should be made explicit. This is implicit in the proposal as it calls on TCs to even makeredirectiona specific conformance requirement to send a user from an "abstract" URI representing a particular artifact to a "concrete" network endpointresource(or "representation"). There is currently no generally accepted distinction between a conceptual "entity" and a "real" artifact which, I beleive, is not only useful but essential to disambiguate the issues related to identification and representation addressing.* The structure of the proposed identifier explicitly admits that semantics can be deduced from the ID. These semantics - such as "version", "stage", etc. refer to aspects of a work's process lifecycle and not to inherent and non-dissociable properties of the work itself. The identifier structure also implies a hierarchical relationship between components of the identifier, whereas the relationship is purely associative. Some examples: I can talk about a "work" (for example a TC's charter, an informationmodel,a specification) as well as representations of that work (the charter as first published; a revision to the charter;version 5 of a particularschema;the French language translation of the current version of a specification). The current proposal makes no distinction between the conceptual, abstract entity and its representations. A document does not "have" a "version": version is a property of a relationship between an abstract entity and a representation, it is not an inherent property of the representation itself. The representation does not change (hence, consistent with the principle of permanent URLs) but onlythenature of its relationships through associations. Ultimately, any persistent referencing architecture should only use the identity of an abstract entity which should be de-referenced dynamicallyandcontextually to then point and direct to a specific concrete entity. One of the greatest sources of "broken link" problems is precisely the lack ofsuchinformation architectural modeling. Any attempt to establish an addressing model that relies upon and is based on context-dependent links will ultimately fail and is not sustainable. It is far more stable and dependable to build artifact identity based on the conceptual layer. [1] "Representation" - a specific rendition of a given "abstract" or conceptual artifact Peter F Brown ------------- Chair, CEN eGovernment Focus Group ------------- ICT-Strategy Unit Austrian Federal Chancellery ------------- Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs inOASISat: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs inOASISat: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]