[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]