[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 8-9AM PT Tuesday 2009-01-27
Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XRI TC at: Date: Tuesday, 27 January 2009 USA Time: 8:00AM - 9:00AM Pacific Time (16:00-17:00 UTC) ATTENDING Markus Sabadello Peter Davis George Fletcher Drummond Reed Eran Hammer-Lahav John Bradley Brian Eaton AGENDA Note that the agenda for Tuesday calls is now on the Self-Service Agenda page: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/SelfServeAgenda The agenda items below are listed on that page with dated/numbered headings. 1) XRD - RESOURCE RELATIONSHIP (2009-01-26#1) The first issue is about the relationship of an XRD and the resource it describes. We discussed the terminology around this and agreed that to our understanding of the Architecture of the World Wide Web, every URI identifies a unique resource, and it is only via other means that one can establish if multiple URIs identify the same resource, in which case that one resource must be an "abstract" or "aggregate" resource (sometimes called an entity). Brian: what's the difference between <About> and <URI>? The key question we discussed was: is the relationship of an XRD to resource 1-to-1 or 1-to-many? In other words, can a single XRD describe multiple resources? The assumption up through XRI 2.0 is that the relationship is 1-to-1. Under this assumption, an XRD can only have a CanonicalID and any other identifiers included to describe that resource must all be synonyms (identifier for the same resource). However Eran's question introduces a new way of looking at it. A single XRD may describe an entire set of resources. His proposed <About> element is a way for the XRD to identify such resource(s), but it is optional and one-way pointer from the XRD to any resource it describes. Peter suggested that this could be considered an "anonymous XRD" or "wildcard XRD". This would mean it is a set of metadata that describes any one of a group of resources, such as all the web pages at a site. Such an XRD would not have a CanonicalID because it does not represent a single resource, but a set of resources. Peter gave the example Walmart having a single XRD that describes all RFID tags in its namespace. He noted this wildcard XRD may introduce some trust processing challenges. The consuming application still needs to know that resource X is authoritatively described by the XRD Y. In the past, XRDs have used CanonicalID to do this, but that does not have to be the only mechanism. Peter suggested that instead of a fixed CanonicalID or URI element, the XRD may support a URI template just as has been proposed for /site-meta. This "wildcard CanonicalID" would match any URI which the XRD was authorized to describe. That could have the benefit of allowing an application to cache a fixed XRD "template" and continue to use it to describe any URI meeting that template, which could have significant performance advantages. George suggested that there should be a way to explicitly declare that the scope of the XRD is beyond a single resource. There seemed to be general support for this wider definition of the applicability of an XRD due to the obvious practical benefits. However we ran out of time to discuss it further on this call. We agreed to continue the discussion on the list and on Thursday's telecon. 2) NEXT CALL Regular Thursday telecon 2-3PM PT (22:00-23:00 UTC). Drummond noted he would not be able to attend due to travel; Peter will facilitate the agenda and the call.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]