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

[Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>]

On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

> I Said  "We need to see the XRD not not as "describing a resource",  
> but as
> an "aggregator of a set of resources". In other words I am  
> suggesting that
> we look at the whole thing from a different perspective. Please note  
> that
> this is not about redefining the definition of the XRD. This is about
> looking at it from a different perspective, so that we can solve this
> problem.

what problem are you suggesting that this new perspective solves?


> And then if you read the rest of my post which you have not copied,  
> I hope
> it makes sense to you.

I did read your entire post.  I didn't copy the rest because it wasn't  
relevant.  XRD simply mimics the way Links already work in HTML, Atom,  
and HTTP.  They are not an "aggregation of resources".  They  
atomically describe the relation that one resource has with another  
resource.  You wrote:

> Note that we are talking of two types of Resource's here.
> 1) The "given Resource", the one the XRD is describing.
> 2) The Resource's pointed to by the Link elements. These are  
> Resources which
> make up the "given Resource".


The resource described by the XRD (the "given Resource" is your  
parlance) is not "made up" of it's related resource.  It is not an  
aggregate of the resources to which it is related.  It is a resource  
in its own right.  An XRD need not even declare related resources if  
they are not relevant for the particular application.

You're looking at XRD from one narrow perspective, and missing the  
complete other half of it.

-will


> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> first of all, I've removed general@openid.net from this thread.
>> xri-comment is the right place to discuss XRD... there's no need to  
>> hijack
>> the OpenID list as well.  If people there care to follow this  
>> discussion,
>> they can join the xri-comment list.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 9, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>> I think the whole problem is with the definition of the XRD, as I  
>> have
>>> suggested in the original post. We need to see the XRD not not as
>>> "describing a resource", but as an "aggregator of a set of  
>>> resources". I
>>> will rewrite the definition of an XRD.
>>>
>>
>> So you're telling me that a specification entitled "Extensible  
>> Resource
>> Descriptor" is not actually about describing resources?  Really?
>>
>> One of the things it describes about a resource is the relations that
>> resource has with other resources.  This is done in the form of one  
>> or more
>> <Link> elements.  But this is not the only way the resource is  
>> described.
>> It is also described by <Alias> identifiers, as well as <Type>  
>> values (soon
>> to be renamed to <Property>).  In addition, because the document is
>> extensible, the resource may be described in any number of ways by  
>> extension
>> elements.
>>
>> XRD is a resource descriptor; it describes a resource.  That's what  
>> it is.
>> I don't know how to make it any plainer.  You can redefine the  
>> scope all
>> you want, but realize that you would then no longer be talking  
>> about XRD.
>>
>> -will