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] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1



Drummond,

It strikes me as funny that you continue to use XDI RDF as the motivation
for adding complexity to the abstract models of XRI syntax and authority
resolution. It is ironic, because I think you have failed to take away one
of the most important lessons that the RDF folks have to offer: that of the
importance of a foundation based upon a solid and simple abstract model.

I urge you to take a look at the normative document "RDF Concepts and
Abstract Syntax" <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/>. If you do, you may
note the following:

1. 	The RDF abstract graph model IS formally defined. (Kudos to them!)
See section 3.1 "Graph Data Model". The XRI/XRI TCs have consistently
"avoided" formally defining their abstract syntax and graph models.

2.	The incredible simplicity of the RDF graph model. This is by design,
not by accident.

3. 	Note the language of section 2.2.4: "RDF has a recommended XML
serialization form [RDF-SYNTAX], which can be used to encode the data model
for exchange of information among applications." 
To the RDF folks, the serialization format is not the "heart" of the
specification -- it is a recommendation. If only RDF XDI could take away
that lesson and focus on its graph model instead of its serialization
format! 

So you keep using (XDI) RDF as a motivation for adding complexity to the XRI
models. I personally consider RDF as a perfect example of why we should NOT
do so.

~ Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:44 PM
To: 'Tan, William'; 'Gabe Wachob'
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

Again, I want to make sure it's clear why this is such a big issue: the XDI
RDF model uses the "grammer" of global-xrefs. This "grammer" cannot be
duplicated (at least in any easy way I can figure out) by "going back" to
2.0 syntax.

So this issue is deep, deep, deep.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tan, William [mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:33 PM
To: Gabe Wachob
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

Yes. Xrefs can only appear within parentheses.

Gabe Wachob wrote:
> Can you spell out the implications of this choice so we know exactly 
> what
it
> is we are voting for/against? 
>
> That is, we are saying that XREFs basically stay as is and that the 
> @foo+bar+baz syntax goes away?
>
> 	-Gabe
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tan, William [mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:25 PM
>> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1
>>
>> We did an informal poll at the f2f two weeks ago on whether we should 
>> stick with XRI Syntax 2.0. I suggest we vote again on the list.
>>
>> +1 - to support concatenated syntax
>> 0 - don't care
>> -1 - no concatenated syntax
>>
>> I'm reverting my vote to -1 because the solution is too confusing IMHO.
>>
>> =wil
>>     
>
>
>   


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