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] Property, rel comparison


On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:25, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno@google.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:32 AM
>> To: Drummond Reed
>> Cc: Scott Cantor; Eran Hammer-Lahav; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [xri] Property, rel comparison
>>
>> What is the benefit of establishing one rule to compare URIs as 'subject' and
>> one for other headings?
>>
>> Will it improve interop? If it leads people to implement subject comparison as
>> byte-by-byte, I think not.
>
> I strongly disagree. Subject comparison is always application specific and should be noted as such. We already have processing rules for trust purposes and I am sure it will extend to pretty much any application that uses subjects. Subject point to a resource and therefore are scheme-specific and obey by those rules.

Okay, and do you want to define rules for these in the spec? Or rely
on existing scheme-based normalization?

>
> Relation types and property types URIs on the other hand are strings structured like URIs. They should follow the same rules as XML namespaces and should not be normalized. There is no reason what-so-ever for anyone to use different variations of these URIs - that's where interop breaks.

Okay, in this case, I propose we have rules on valid names that make
normalization unnecessary.

>
> Either way, the property type questions should be resolved the same way the relation type question, and that is going to come from Web Linking since we already bound it to that.
>
> EHL
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 07:32, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>
>> wrote:
>> > My position on this is simple. XRD is headed into, we hope, extremely
>> > wide usage. Therefore our URI comparison policy should be whatever has
>> > been proven in practice to best support interop.
>> >
>> > If character-by-character comparison = highest degree of interop, as
>> > Scott says, then we better have a  good reason to adopt any another policy.
>> >
>> > =Drummond
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Drummond Reed wrote on 2010-01-26:
>> >> > 2) We don't have consensus yet about the best URI comparison
>> >> > approach to define.
>> >>
>> >> The current "default" position IMHO is Breno's statement, but I agree
>> >> with Eran that we really should be explicit in the text anyway.
>> >>
>> >> I'm willing to argue that URIs used solely as identifiers (i.e., not
>> >> Subject) should be compared like XML namespaces, character for
>> character.
>> >> Apparently there's pushback on that, so I guess if there's nobody
>> >> else that agrees with me, I would suggest we add text along the lines
>> >> that Breno suggested.
>> >>
>> >> I will say, again, that I have not seen any significant interop
>> >> issues arise from using binary comparison because people treat them
>> >> as constants.
>> >>
>> >> -- Scott
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Breno
>>
>> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
>> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
>> MTV-41-3 : 383-A
>> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
>



-- 
--Breno

+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)


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