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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

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

Subject: XRIs and Groups

In the next draft of the XRI Req's doc I want to make sure this thread
on groups is adequately addressed. Here's my takeaway from the
discussion so far:

#1: Everyone agrees XRI's need to be able to identify groups of
resources, whatever this may mean for a particular type of resource
(including broadcast or multicast addressing).

#2: Since a group is itself a resource, this capability is already
inherent in our existing requirements.

#3: So it appears the only remaining the question is, "Is it a
requirement that XRIs be able to semantically or syntactically
distinguish between a group of resources and an individual resource?"

Input on this being added as a requirement?


-----Original Message-----
From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp]
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 5:13 PM
To: 'peter.davis@neustar.biz'
Cc: 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org'; Drummond Reed
Subject: RE: [xri] Requirements Feedback from Visa

Actually, if I am not mistaken, we are just addressing the needs for
addressing and not the implementation, as we are now talking about the
requirement. I agree that polymorphism is almost mandatory in the

Nat Sakimura

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peterd@neustar.biz]
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 6:44 AM
To: Sakimura, Nat
Cc: 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org'; Drummond Reed (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [xri] Requirements Feedback from Visa

The notion of groups is something i have noodled for a while. I
concure that the ability to address _groups_ is terribly usefull, i
help but wonder if it needs to be specified seperately (read
different") than an _individual_ identifier.  I think begin able to
express either using the same construct would be terribly powerfull...

Disambiguating _group_ vs. _individual_ is, IMHO, a metadata question,
not something reflected in the identifier itself.

--- peterd

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Sakimura, Nat wrote:

> Gabe,
> [snip]
> >
> > * Do we need to mention addresses that support the concept of
> or
> > "broadcast"? More generally, do we need to have a concept of
"groups" in
> > (as distinct from individual resources).
> >
> Concept of groups is very useful. We were doing some prototyping on
> server for last 3 months, and "group identity" was very useful.
> [snip]
> > 471+: This is perhaps and awkward placesment of this requirement
> > don't remember who's comment this is, but I can't figure out a
> > placement)
> >
> I cannot think of any other place either. In fact, this requirement is
> almost redundant because this is almost automatically granted.
> it does not to have it spelled out here just to make sure.
> > 476+: Probably should lose the word "veronymity" in this requirement
> > a) nobody knows about it and b) it should probably be stated as (at
> end
> > of the rquirement) ".. and support the ability to make assertions
> the
> > verfiability of the presented identifiers" (or something like that).
> > However, isn't this outside the scope of the XRI spec?
> Same as above. Almost redundant.

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