[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded
Nat- Actually, the IRI spec says that mapping from URIs to IRIs unambiguously requires context not present in a URI. In http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.html#URItoIRI the problem is demonstrated in the situation where you convert an IRI to a URI and back -- "the IRI resulting from this conversion may not be exactly the same as the original IRI". Maybe we can address this ambiguity - perhaps you can figure this out better than i have done so far. Also, as for the "defining a URI" vs. "defining an IRI" - I'm not sure how this plays out. We absolutely need to be able to use XRIs anywhere one would use a URI. However, we know that IRIs can always be mapped to URIs (and in the case where there are no non-URI characters in and IRI, the IRI is syntactically equivalent to the URI to start with). As for equivalence - thats something we *have* to discuss as the specifiers of a URI scheme. We don't have to say much - we can say that two XRI URIs are "equivalent" if they are octet-by-octet the same (though there are issues about unescaping sequences before or after the comparison). I suppose it gets trickier if you define XRIs as an IRI scheme. The other problem with relying on the IRI spec right now is that its not a spec yet. Its still only a draft over at the IETF, and the IETF process is slow. I'm guessing we won't see a finalized IRI spec in 2003. Don't get me wrong - I think we should leverage IRIs somehow. I'd even be in favor of defining XRIs as an IRI scheme if we could ensure that would not cause any problems for those many places where URIs are called for (after conversion to the URI form). I just think its more complicated than simply referring to the IRI spec (a lot more complicated). -Gabe > -----Original Message----- > From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:06 AM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - > xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded > > > Gabe, > > Conceptually, IRI has larger set than URI (IRI includes URI), but both > are countable and thus can be mapped one to one, I think. > Could you give > me an example of mapping one URI to multiple IRIs please? > > Fundamentally, the question for us probably is "do we really > want to be > bound by this aging URI standard?" To me, URI v.s. IRI controversy is > largely due to the backward compatibility issues. If we think > afresh, we > probably do not choose URI to be the normative format because > it is the > source of milliard of problems for I18N. Unicode is not perfect (some > purists say that it is useless - it generally cannot distinguish among > similar but distinct characters because these are collapsed into one), > but is much cleaner. Resolution does not have to go through the > transformation to URI. Our internationalized identifier should be able > to be resolved directly. > > On equivalence: I think URI equivalence arguments do not > affect us. This > is because we have abstract permanent identifier, which can be pretty > restrictive in the allowed character set as we do not need the human > readability. To test the equivalence of two identifiers, we should > resolve to the permanent identifier and compare them. To protect the > privacy, we might not want to expose the permanent identifier. In this > case, the proxy should give out True/False result. We have a much > powerful tool than URIs in this regard. > > Nat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 4:25 AM > To: 'Drummond Reed'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - > xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded > > Drummond- > A few notes. > > First, in section 3.4.5 (you said 3.3.5) - "non-resolvable > syntax" - whats the use case? Why do we need to *prevent* an > attempt to > resolve? Why would a software component resolve an identifier > unless it > needed to? It seems like there are only two cases: a piece of software > needs to resolve the identifier, or it doesn't. This decision is based > on application semantics, not the syntax of the identifier. How does > marking an identifier as "non-resolvable" help at all? > > In section 3.4.6 (internationalization) - there is a discussiong > going on at the W3C TAG (issue named something like "IRIEverywhere") > where the appropriateness of where IRIs should be used is being > discussed. It is clear, for example, that IRIs cannot be used > everywhere > URIs can be used. The issue is whether *future* specs should refer to > IRIs or URIs. An IRI can be "cast down" into a URI unambiguously, but > because there are several ways to translate unicode into > ascii, its not > always possible to unambigously convert an URI back into an > IRI (without > some context like the encoding used to go from IRI to URI). > So, while I > think we should definitely address IRIs and XRIs, I don't think XRIs > should expect to be solving the problems that IRIs have with the > relationshipt to URIs. We *could* propose a way to encode the things > that are needed to unambiguously convert a URI back into an > IRI, but I'm > guessing that would actually break the IRI spec. I'm going > out beyond my > competency ! > here I think. > Bottom line is that we either have to wait for the IRI things to > shake out, or we have to tread new ground in i18n. I *definitely* want > XRIs to be "i18n enabled", but I'm a little worried about us > planning on > achieving that in the short term by relying on IRIs. > > This document has come a LONG way and I think does a pretty good > job of identifying why we are all here. Congrats and thanks > to all those > who contributed. I'm sure there will be more input and fixes > to the doc, > but I feel like we're very close to the "good enough" state > where we can > then concentrate on the syntax and resolution specs. > > -Gabe > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 11:45 AM > > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - > > xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded > > > > > > First, let me note two reasons for posting v5b: > > > > 1) I found out from Marc Le Maitre this morning that leaving "Track > > Changes" on screwed up the section numbering, so it makes > it difficult > > to talk about requirement numbers. Let's use v5b on the call today. > > > > 2) There was an MS Word cross-reference error (unfortunately not all > > that uncommon) in 3.4.7 that needed fixing. > > > > Please make any edits to this clean version after making sure "Track > > Changes" is turned on. > > > > I will review the key updates on the TC call this afternoon, but the > > major areas to review are: > > > > * Sections 2.1 - 2.3 of the Motivations section. These were > rewritten > > for the third time to reflect the consensus regarding terminology. > > > > * Requirement 3.1.2 was rewritten to reflect the URN > conformance topic > > as discussed on the list. > > > > * The original requirements section 3.3 was broken into the > > new sections > > 3.3 and 3.4 to reflect the clarifications in 2.2 and 2.3 about > > persistence and HFIs/MFIs. > > > > * 3.3.5 (Non-Resolvable Syntax) was added to reflect a > > requirement Marc > > Le Maitre has surfaced from the Namespace committee of the > > U.S. XML.gov > > working group. > > > > * 3.4.6 (Internationalization) was edited to reflect Nat's input > > regarding IRIs. We should discuss this on today's call. > > > > * The Glossary was updated and all TO DO's in it were finished. > > > > The only remaining TO DOs are a few entries in the > > informative glossary > > and Appendix A (Acknowledgments). > > > > Talk to everyone at 3pm PDT. > > > > =Drummond > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drummond Reed > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 11:13 AM > > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [xri] Groups - xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded > > > > The document xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc has been > submitted by > > Drummond Reed (drummond.reed@onename.com) to the Extensible Resource > > Identifier TC document repository. > > > > Document Description: > > v5b of XRI Requirements and Glossary - This is a CLEAN > version with a > > faulty MS Word cross-reference fixed. Please submit any edits > > using this > > version. > > > > Download Document: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/download.php/ > > 2050/xri-r > > equirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc > > > > View Document Details: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/document.php? > > document_i > > d=2050 > > > > > > PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email > > application > > may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able > to copy and > > paste > > the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. > > > > -OASIS Open Administration > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave_workgroup.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]