My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0

[Santosh Rajan <santrajan@gmail.com>]

Let us start with the definition, and overall scope of the XRD 1.0 spec. I have many more comments on the spec, but I will restrict this post only to one aspect, because there is no point in bringing up the other issues unless we agree on what I have to say in this post.

Let me quote from the beginning of the spec.

"This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing resources".

Now if you read the rest of the whole specification it is all about "describing resources". There is nothing else to the whole spec other than "describing resources". ie. XRD's are about "describing resources".

Now this is true, but not the "whole truth", and i am estimating only "half the truth".

Why is the other half of the truth not here? I don't know whether it is by accident or design. Now let us get to the whole truth.

What makes a Resource a "Resource"? Or what makes any "thing" or an "entity" a Resource?

It is the "availability" of the Resource to something else (another entity). I will explain.

1) Bikeshed-color-blue is an entity. What should it do to become a "Resource"? It must make itself available to John Panzer. Right! this bikeshed becomes a Resource only when it is "available" to someone or something.

2) Bikeshed-color-red is my bikeshed. Can we put these two bikesheds (resources) into the same XRD? No we CANNOT. Because both these bikesheds have made themselves available to two different people with two different XRD's.

That means the current definition of the XRD does not give the whole story and we need a more truthful definition. Here is the new definition.

 

"This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing a set of resources that is available to a given entity".

Now we can take this concept of the "set of resources" that have made themselves available to a "given entity", a little further.

Now it is not very difficult to understand that this "given entity",  is your "given identifier", or "Subject" or "rdf:about". (I am assuming people reading this are technically inclined).

So we can clearly see that, just like a Resource is meaningless without defining what it is available for, the whole "XRD 1.0 is spec is meaningless, without defining or explaining what an XRD is about".

In other words the XRD spec needs to clearly specify "what an XRD is about?", "What is, the resources in the XRD, making itself available to?"

Now let me preempt the arguments these guys are going to put up against this post.

1) We don't understand what you are saying!

2) This is wrong.

3) This is beyond the Scope.

If you want to argue this, you better come up with something better than (1) (2) (3) above. Just in case you did not understand anything, please ask, I will explain. And don't ask anything irrelevent to this post. (Dont I know you guys by now?).

--
http://hi.im/santosh