RE: [xri] Comments on requirements draft-02 motivations

[Drummond Reed <Drummond.Reed@onename.com>]

Ah, sorry, I forgot your "linking vs. addressing" question. Those labels on
the layer chart were left over from the original presentation which was
addressing the primary market need that each layer was trying to solve. I
may remove them altogether from the final draft.

Although linking is a common use of identifiers, it doesn't affect the
identifiers proper. I agree we are just "doing identifiers".

=Drummond  

-----Original Message-----
From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:29 PM
To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on requirements draft-02 motivations

That mostly addresses it -- but I really do need to know specifically the
difference between linking and identifying.

It seems that we are just doing identifiers. Linking seems to be something
more of a statement *about* an identifier (as in XNS contracts, or in XLINK,
or even HTML), rather than merely the string of characters comprising a
link.

        -Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:Drummond.Reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:13 PM
> To: gwachob@visa.com; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on requirements draft-02 motivations
>
>
> Gabe, great feedback. I'll incorporate it into the next draft
> that I'm doing
> on Wednesday.
>
> I think the distinction between level 5 - URLs - and level 6
> - URNs is the
> most fundamental point in the whole piece, so I'll try to
> make sure it's as
> clear as possible. I agree that the label "URL" is probably
> something we
> should avoid, since it has become so nebulous. I'm tempted
> then to label the
> levels using our glossary terms as follows:
>
> Layer 7 - Reassignable Abstract Resource Identifiers
> Layer 6 - Permanent Abstract Resource Identifiers
> Layer 5 - Concrete Resource Identifiers
> Layer 4 - DNS Names
> Layer 3 - IP Addresses
> Layer 2 - MAC Addresses
> Layer 1 - Internal Machine Addresses
>
> Layers 5, 6, and 7 are all URIs, just for different purposes and with
> different requirements. The whole reason for XRIs is to have an
> interoperable standard for abstract URIs - layers 6 and 7.
>
> You asked about Layer 1 - it is the internal address of a
> resource within a
> particular MAC-addressable machine, i.e., a filename, a
> spreadsheet cell, a
> database record, etc. Layer 1 addresses are allocated by
> operating systems
> and applications. Does that answer your question?
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gwachob@visa.com [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 8:28 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Comments on requirements draft-02 motivations
>
> Drummond-
>
> Comments on the requirements motivations section. Overall its
> fine - here'
> some specific comments.
>
>   -Gabe
>
>
> line 83: whats the "layer 1"? I'm not sure what you mean
> here. Whats the
> difference between linking and naming? Also, the stacking of
> URN on top of
> URL is perhaps contentious. The offical "modern view" is that
> URNs and URLs
> are mostly non-overlapping and they are both subsets of the
> space of URIs.
> URLs are actually not formally defined anywhere (some people
> think HTTP URIs
> when you say URLs, some think its exactly the same as URIs,
> some think its
> some category of URIs that have a machine address in them)
>
> line 88-89: the description of IP should talk about "between other
> machine-level networking protocols" - probably better to say
> "between local
> networks"
>
> line 99-102: URNs are NOT web-resolvable URLs. Some argue that the
> non-resolvability of URNs is whats held them up from being used. Us
> providing at least a basic resolutoin mechanism will make
>
> line 116-122: I think you aren't addressing the real problem
> with URNs (or
> I'm not following you). I'm not sure the problem is best
> stated as that they
> are hard to use for humans. I think the problem you are
> getting at is that
> there is an inherent tension between the persistence of URNs and the
> transitivity of human understanding of terms. There are certainly
> non-transient things that can be identified by URNs (ie a
> particular SENSE
> of a word - like "bare" can mean "undressed" or it can mean
> "plain"). So the
> problem is that the symbols humans are used to have inherent
> non-persistence
> and "imprecision" that are in conflict with the precision and
> permanence of
> URNs.
>
> lines 143-148: the "postal mail to the bathroom" example is a little
> strained. Perhaps the concept of addressing to a corporate role (ie
> "President") is more illustrative (ie to addess mail to
> "President, XYZ
> Corp, 123 Main St, Anywhere, CA, 94001)
>