[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri-comment] My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0
Before I actually respond, let me make sure I understand what you are saying. The first sentence of Section 1 reads: > This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing > resources. You are recommending that it be changed to read: > This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing a > set of resources that is available to a given entity. You said that the "given entity" in your sentence above is the subject of the XRD, right? I would then assume that the "set of resources" you are referring to is the set of <Link> elements representing related resources. Is that much correct? -will On Nov 8, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote: > 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?).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]