OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [xri] versioning of authirity section [Issue 5]


Wachob, Gabe wrote:

>More specifically, I have several open questions and points w/r/t versioning naming authorities:
>
>1) What implication does this have for equivalence rules? (not specific to versions-in-the-naming-authority) That is, are two URIs with different version tags (or one with a version tag and one without) *ever* equivalent? URI schemes should specify equivalence rules - generally the default is "syntactic character-by-character equivalence" (usually with some ignorance of case for domain names)
>
I would think the could be.  Eg:

xri://owl.peterd.us/pets/dogs/dante  is equivalent (today) to 
xri://owl.peterd.us/pets/dogs/eldest[:20030423]

in this case, version is expressing a state of things at a point in 
time.  When dante passes on to doggie heaven <emotion type="sniff"/>  
xri://owl.peterd.us/pets/dogs/eldest[:20030423] will still be accurate, 
however, xri://owl.peterd.us/pets/dogs/eldest would then be equivelant 
to xri://owl.peterd.us/pets/dogs/virgil

this (in part) is why i believe the TAG views versioning as such a 
sticky wicket.

>2) What implication for the resolutoin process (RDDDS for URIs). I see two cases:
>
>a) Version parts are interpreted "opaquely" -- that any version string (including the ':', ',', etc leading characters) are essentially unparsed by a resolver. In this case, i think DDDS-style resolution isn't really affected.  
>
>b) Version parts need to be "canonicalized" or otherwise parsed to make sure they are resolved correctly (from a semantic point of view). 
>
>It seems to me that #2 is the more likely situation since how does a resolver understand that a version of the naming authority 'as of January 20th' is the same one as that which is in place today? DDDS (and RDDDS) do resolution based on pattern matching - it seems to me that versions in the naming authority parts would totally eliminate DDDS as a viable resolution mechanism. I don't think versioning breaks the HTTP resolution, but it may break some caching semantics (because things which are not syntactically equal may in fact be semantically equal - need to think this through). 
>  
>
Excellent point, and why i think an entire document for resolution with 
versioning could be warranted (but undesirable!).   DDDS will not assist 
here when there is a change of authority, unless the gaining authority 
is compeled to retain regex NAPTRs which may assist in the redirection 
of the authority part.

>3) I tend to think the distinction between XRI URIs (versioned namespace authorities) and XRI URNs (not versioned, since I think this breaks the semantics of "once and forever assigned..") makes sense. 
>
>Maybe the answer to #2 is that versioning is important in XRI URIs and that DDDS simply isn't an option there? 
>
Hmmm.. not entirely convinced of this yet.  I'll have to think more abt 
versions and DDDS.

---- peterd




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]