OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri-editors message

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


Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Schedule for RC2


Sounds good Drummond. I'll do my best to have proposed text to the list by
tomorrow night and coordinate a call if it looks like that makes sense.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:59 PM
> To: Lindelsee, Mike; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri-editors] Schedule for RC2
>
>
> First, Mike, thanks for weighing in. I completely agree with you about
> the importance of having a really complete, sound spec outweighing a
> self-imposed date. Thankfully the $ metadata issue was the only thing
> keeping me awake at night (beside all the other non-XRI-spec things ;-),
> so if we separate that out I feel quite good about the rest. Adding
> canonical form rules, if it makes sense after Dave's proposal, is icing
> on the cake.
>
> So here's the proposed schedule: Dave is going to try to post his
> proposed rules tomorrow. Due to meetings I have Wed. and Thur., I
> probably can't complete my revised text until Friday, however I should
> be able to complete it that day (and roll in Dave's text if its done).
> That means we should have an RC2 to review by Sat (if anyone's willing)
> or worst case Monday. If we can iterate on it early next week, it should
> be stable for a vote by next Thursday, which only delays us a week and
> means we can celebrate a 1.0 at Thanksgiving.
>
> I vote that we drive really hard for that - it would be good for the
> gumption.
>
> Let me know if this is any problem. Meanwhile, Dave and I discussed
> whether we should still have a call this Thursday. I think it may be a
> good idea to discuss Dave's proposal at a minimum (and any questions I
> might have by then), but I'll leave it to Dave to decide (and, if he
> decides yes, to set up by sending a msg. to the list). If we hold it I'd
> send the call-in details to the list so any TC member can join and
> provide us with further feedback.
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:17 AM
> To: Drummond Reed; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] URGENT: 2 Major Issues with RC1
>
> 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.
>
> 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/members/l
eave_workgroup.php.





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