[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Requirements Feedback from Visa
Drummond- Here's a summary of feedback from folks at Visa. This is summarized to make the work of integrating this stuff easier. Most comments were in the Motivations section. GENERAL COMMENTS * Do we need to mention addresses that support the concept of "multicast" or "broadcast"? More generally, do we need to have a concept of "groups" in XRI (as distinct from individual resources). LINE-BY-LINE COMMENTS 117: The Motivations section needs to flow really smoothly and be really tight. Needs some more work. 119: Explain the "100% concrete/100% abstract" distinction. Is this really true? Is "abstractness" really the distinction? Or is it more "logical/physical" a distinction? 120+: In introducing the layers of Figure 1, introduce each in a bullet point to make the paragraph clearer and flow better. Also, make sure that "addressing" is described consistently and tied in with each layer (e.g. what is each layer *addressing*). 152-180: Its confusing to talk about abstract identifiers but also mean persistent and reliable too. How is abstractness equivalent (or is it?) to persistent and reliable? 163: The urn given is a bad example of a identifier which is non-semantic and hard for humans to use. In fact, I think it *is* semantic and not *too* hard for humans. Most URIs in use today are semantic and easy for human use. A good example that's both non-semantic and hard are the HTTP URLs for some sites which have complicated URLs -- e.g. http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,48716,00.html 172: Figure 2- The top two elements should perhaps be called "Abstract Identifiers" (maybe also on figure 1) 182+: A even-better example is needed - perhaps this section focuses too much on trying to describe a physical analogue to cross-context identification. Maybe talk about the "same invoice in different enterprise systems" example? 201: "concatenating" is too narrow and/or misleading - "concantenation" is just a mechanism or a "means to a end" - describe the more general process going on here of syntactic inclusion. 212: We need to be careful about the term "resource" - probably should talk about resource data here (what does "instances of resources" mean?) 218: change "would" -> "might" 255: "to contain no data..." is awkward. need to emphasize that the "free of personally identify information" 313: This first sentence uses "identi*" too much - can easily lose the reader. 367+: Requirement here is really "IDs must support the represetnation of objects in the users's native language and scripts" - what is here is an implementation (though the only obvious one) of that requirementrs 471+: This is perhaps and awkward placesment of this requirement (GMW: I don't remember who's comment this is, but I can't figure out a better placement) 476+: Probably should lose the word "veronymity" in this requirement since a) nobody knows about it and b) it should probably be stated as (at the end of the rquirement) ".. and support the ability to make assertions about the verfiability of the presented identifiers" (or something like that). However, isn't this outside the scope of the XRI spec?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]