RE: [xri-editors] URGENT: 2 Major Issues with RC1

["Lindelsee, Mike" <mlindels@visa.com>]

I think that your proposals for both issues are good ones, Drummond.  I also think that is is far more important for us to have a complete (in our eyes at least) spec than to rush and hit a self-imposed date.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 8:15 PM
> To: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri-editors] URGENT: 2 Major Issues with RC1
> 
> 
> Editors:
> 
> It's times like this that make me reconsider the job of final spec
> editing coordination. After completely blowing out my schedule for the
> last two weeks trying to get everything done by this Thursday's voting
> deadline, Dave and I just spent 1.5 hours on the phone discussing two
> snags with RC1 that require serious consideration by the Editors as to
> whether we need to take more time to resolve them.
> 
> I'm writing this email just to explain the issues. See the 
> end of it for
> my conclusion about how we should try to resolve this.
> 
> The two issues are:
> 
> 1) Separating out Appendix B, the $ space, into a separate spec, and
> 2) Defining the canonical form of an XRI.
> 
> Following are details on each.
> 
> APPENDIX B - THE $ SPACE
> 
> In his comments sent to the Editor's list on RC1b, Dave observed that
> Appendix B is "underspecified". Given the importance of $ metadata to
> XRI architecture, I'm afraid I have to agree with him. It was my
> responsibility to draft this appendix, which has been simply 
> as a bullet
> point list of the $ identifiers we have been compiling as we wrote the
> spec, and I admit I put it off until the end (because it was an
> appendix!!). 
> 
> When I finally got around to drafting the text, I realized 
> that some of
> these, like $!, required more than just listing in an appendix. $l and
> $f are already discussed (though I think not enough) in the main spec.
> So are $s and $s.a in the resolution section, and $t in 
> Appendix D. But
> $v, which may be the single most important $ identifier of all, and $q
> are not discussed anywhere.
> 
> Dave's suggestion, which made me cringe but also made sense, 
> is that we
> consider separating out Appendix B into a second spec, which for
> purposes of discussion we called the XRI Metadata 
> Specification. One of
> the main reasons we agreed we should consider this is that the $ space
> is likely to evolve fairly rapidly over the next year, and it would be
> nice to be able to rev the Metadata spec separately from the 
> main spec. 
> 
> This of course raises all kinds of questions about how we would deal
> with $ identifiers which are an integral part of the current spec ($f,
> $l, $s, $t). The main ideas Dave and I discussed were to:
> 
> a) Specify in the main spec any $ metadata necessary for the 
> main spec.
> Otherwise specify that the Metadata spec is authoritative for 
> all other
> $ metadata.
> 
> b) Specify in the main spec that the Metadata spec will define two
> classes of metadata for the purposes of equivalence - significant and
> insignificant. All insignificant metadata would be separated into one
> space (tentatively $!) so that it can easily be ignored by an XRI
> processor. All other $ metadata SHOULD be considered significant.
> 
> CANONICAL FORM
> 
> The second point, made by both Gabe and Dave in their 
> feedback on RC1b,
> is that we don't really define a canonical form of an XRI. My edit in
> RC1b changed the heading of the "Optional Syntax" subsection in
> Normalization and Comparison to "Canonicalization", but otherwise just
> left it as a set of equivalence rules.
> 
> Dave and I discussed this at length and agreed that our instincts tell
> us that given the equivalence rules we have enumerated, it 
> would make it
> significantly easier for implementers if we took the time to define
> canonicalization rules. Dave has volunteered to do this if we agree it
> makes sense.
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> Right now, having spent 2.5 hours thinking about this (on not enough
> sleep last night), my gut feeling is that, as painful as it is, we
> should do both of the above. It breaks into 2 chunks of work:
> 
> 1) Rewriting RC1b to separate out Appendix B and reference a separate
> Metadata Spec (2-3 hours - I would volunteer for this).
> 2) Drafting and integrating the canonicalization rules (3-4 
> hours - Dave
> would volunteer for this).
> 
> Although theoretically this could be accomplished by Thursday, these
> changes are major enough that they would require another 
> round of review
> by the Editors and the TC members. So realistically, we're looking at
> another 2 week cycle (1 week to draft and polish, one week to review
> before a vote).
> 
> So, how does everyone else feel about this? Since I'll be offline at
> meetings most of tomorrow, let's try to close this by email 
> in the next
> 24 hours so we know what should communicate to the rest of the TC
> members by Wednesday.
> 
> =Drummond  
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/membe
rs/leave_workgroup.php.