[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Subject of a host-meta XRD (was: <SubjectTemplate>)
Agreed on all points. So what's the gameplan for coming to closure on this issue? Should I put it on the agenda for tomorrow's telecon? =Drummond > -----Original Message----- > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:00 PM > To: Drummond Reed; 'XRI TC' > Subject: RE: Subject of a host-meta XRD (was: <SubjectTemplate>) > > The issue is still open, but I am not sure we have nails the exact problem > yet. > > If you recall about 6 months ago we had a discussion about whether Links > in host-meta apply to individual resources belonging to the host under > LRDD. According to the host-meta spec, they do, but LRDD I explicitly > chose to ignore them for the purpose of looking for descriptors. A few > days ago Dirk raised the same questions. > > We had all these issues before with the text-based host-meta but they were > just not that obvious because we were unable to apply all the thinking > that went into XRD there. But now that we reformatted host-meta to use > XRD, it all surfaced. > > The two main questions are: > > 1. What is a 'host' (or 'site' or 'authority' etc.)? > 2. How do we identify it? > > So far we defined host as either: > > 1. Any resource belonging to the combination of domain/port/protocol (i.e. > a set), or > 2. An abstract concept of authority restricted by domain/port and possibly > protocol > > A Link to one has a very different meaning than the other. In fact, I > don't know what a Link means for #2... > > If we decide a host is a 'set', we should find a way to describe a set of > URIs (which will be useful for other purposes). If we decide a host is a > resource (of some sort), we should find a URI to identify it. > > I don't think there is right or wrong here. It is just a question of which > option is easier/more productive/reusable. > > EHL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:47 PM > > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; 'XRI TC' > > Subject: Subject of a host-meta XRD (was: <SubjectTemplate>) > > > > Eran, > > > > I knew as soon as the question "What's the subject of a host-meta XRD?" > > came > > up that we were headed into W3C httpRange-14 territory. For those who > > have > > never heard about this "Web identity crisis", see: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/httpRange-14/2007-05-31/HttpRange- > > 14 > > http://norman.walsh.name/2005/06/19/httpRange-14 > > http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/125.html > > > > There are dozens more references where those came from, as I'm sure > > those > > who have stepped into this quicksand know. Just Google "httpRange-14". > > > > So I'm not going to try to give any philosophical answers here, only > > practical ones. On that basis, my observations: > > > > 1) Both the <XRD:SubjectTemplate> suggestion (see below) and the Powder > > approach (essentially another way of desribing a URI template using > > individual XML elements for each constraint) seem like reasonable > > options. I > > prefer SubjectTemplate because it's less complex. But I'm not sure what > > the > > SubjectTemplate value would be that describes "the authority for this > > domain" vs. any specific resource in that domain. Would it just be a > > wildcard? > > > > 2) A second option is to use either a fragment, or an empty fragment. I > > prefer the latter for this particular use case. In other words, if > > http://example.com identifies a specific information resource (e.g., > > the 200 > > response you get back), then http://example.com# could describe the > > abstract > > concept of http://example.com (a non-information resource). > > > > 2) A third option -- mentioned frequently in the httpRange-14 debate -- > > is > > using another URI scheme intended exclusively to represent non- > > information > > resources. (Hmmmm, where could we find something like that? ;-) Of > > course, > > it's ironic that due to W3C TAG's input, XRI is no longer actually > > another > > URI scheme, but an identifier syntax that is bound to a base URI to > > produce > > a valid URI. I posted earlier about what the bound http: XRI that > > described > > "the current authority" would look like: http://xri.net/$. > > > > In any case, all three of these options would appear to work. Have you > > decided on one? Is the issue still open? > > > > =Drummond > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:37 PM > > > To: XRI TC > > > Subject: [xri] <SubjectTemplate> > > > > > > This idea isn't new but given the need to solve the host-meta Subject > > use > > > case, I would like to know what others here think about it. > > > > > > EHL > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > > Eran > > > Hammer-Lahav > > > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:32 PM > > > To: Erik Wilde; uri@w3.org > > > Subject: RE: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, > > etc.) > > > > > > Using a URI template is one option being considered (XRD already has > > a > > > <URITemplate> element under <Link> so the syntax is already part of > > XRD). > > > However, that requires either creating a new element (like > > > <SubjectTemplate>) or changing the XML schema type for <Subject> > > which > > > currently does not allow anything but valid URIs. > > > > > > But before we consider that, I wanted to see if there was an easy > > solution > > > for describing such resources with a URI. > > > > > > EHL > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > > Erik > > > > Wilde > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:43 AM > > > > To: uri@w3.org > > > > Subject: Re: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, > > > > etc.) > > > > > > > > hello. > > > > > > > > Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > > > > Let me try explaining my use case again, this time without any > > > > overloaded terminology or proposed solutions. > > > > > XRD is a document format for describing resources. It looks like > > > > this: > > > > > <XRD> > > > > > <Subject>http://example.com</Subject> > > > > > <Type>http://example.org/type/blog</Type> > > > > > <Link> > > > > > <Rel>author</Rel> > > > > > <URI>http://example.com/author</URI> > > > > > </URI> > > > > > </XRD> > > > > > Without getting too much into XRD, this short descriptor > > describes > > > > the resource identified by 'http://example.com'. It includes one > > type > > > > indicator (a made up example meant to mean this resource is a > > blog), > > > > and one link to the author's page. > > > > > I want to use this document format to describe rules that apply > > to > > > > all resources which belong to an HTTP host (as defined by 2616: a > > > > domain/address and port combination). The problem is, <Subject> > > > > requires a URI and currently there is no way to identify this set > > of > > > > resources (http://domain:port/*) as a valid URI. > > > > > What I don't want to do is use an exception such as 'if the URI > > > > begins with X, treat it as a rule and not a valid URI'... > > > > > > > > given this new description, isn't what you're looking for a URI > > > > template > > > > language for XRD? maybe not exactly the one currently proposed by > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-03, but isn't > > > > that > > > > close to what you want? a template notation would also nicely > > address > > > > the case mentioned already where the host scope would be too > > general. > > > > but then again, a URI template is not a URI, so you could use it in > > the > > > > context of XRD, but not as a standalone URI.... > > > > > > > > cheers, > > > > > > > > erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814 > > > > dret@berkeley.edu - http://dret.net/netdret > > > > UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > > https://www.oasis- > > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]