Re: [xri-comment] My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0

[Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>]

Before I actually respond, let me make sure I understand what you are  
saying.  The first sentence of Section 1 reads:

> This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing  
> resources.


You are recommending that it be changed to read:

> This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing a  
> set of resources that is available to a given entity.


You said that the "given entity" in your sentence above is the subject  
of the XRD, right?  I would then assume that the "set of resources"  
you are referring to is the set of <Link> elements representing  
related resources.  Is that much correct?

-will


On Nov 8, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

> Let us start with the definition, and overall scope of the XRD 1.0  
> spec. I
> have many more comments on the spec, but I will restrict this post  
> only to
> one aspect, because there is no point in bringing up the other  
> issues unless
> we agree on what I have to say in this post.
>
> Let me quote from the beginning of the spec.
> "This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing
> resources".
>
> Now if you read the rest of the whole specification it is all about
> "describing resources". There is nothing else to the whole spec  
> other than
> "describing resources". ie. XRD's are about "describing resources".
>
> Now this is true, but not the "whole truth", and i am estimating  
> only "half
> the truth".
>
> Why is the other half of the truth not here? I don't know whether it  
> is by
> accident or design. Now let us get to the whole truth.
>
> What makes a Resource a "Resource"? Or what makes any "thing" or an  
> "entity"
> a Resource?
> It is the "availability" of the Resource to something else (another  
> entity).
> I will explain.
> 1) Bikeshed-color-blue is an entity. What should it do to become a
> "Resource"? It must make itself available to John Panzer. Right! this
> bikeshed becomes a Resource only when it is "available" to someone or
> something.
> 2) Bikeshed-color-red is my bikeshed. Can we put these two bikesheds
> (resources) into the same XRD? No we CANNOT. Because both these  
> bikesheds
> have made themselves available to two different people with two  
> different
> XRD's.
>
> That means the current definition of the XRD does not give the whole  
> story
> and we need a more truthful definition. Here is the new definition.
>
> "This document defines XRD, a simple generic format for describing a  
> set of
> resources that is available to a given entity".
>
> Now we can take this concept of the "set of resources" that have made
> themselves available to a "given entity", a little further.
>
> Now it is not very difficult to understand that this "given  
> entity",  is
> your "given identifier", or "Subject" or "rdf:about". (I am assuming  
> people
> reading this are technically inclined).
>
> So we can clearly see that, just like a Resource is meaningless  
> without
> defining what it is available for, the whole "XRD 1.0 is spec is
> meaningless, without defining or explaining what an XRD is about".
>
> In other words the XRD spec needs to clearly specify "what an XRD is
> about?", "What is, the resources in the XRD, making itself available  
> to?"
>
> Now let me preempt the arguments these guys are going to put up  
> against this
> post.
> 1) We don't understand what you are saying!
> 2) This is wrong.
> 3) This is beyond the Scope.
>
> If you want to argue this, you better come up with something better  
> than (1)
> (2) (3) above. Just in case you did not understand anything, please  
> ask, I
> will explain. And don't ask anything irrelevent to this post. (Dont  
> I know
> you guys by now?).