RE: [xri] XRIs and Groups

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

I vote for no special syntax for representing a group - grouping (like Peter and Nat have pointed out) is a semantic abstraction represented in metadata (or other data).

	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 1:49 PM
> To: Sakimura, Nat; peter.davis@neustar.biz; Wachob, Gabe;
> xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] 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?
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> 
> 
> -----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
> group
> addressing and not the implementation, as we are now talking about the
> requirement. I agree that polymorphism is almost mandatory in the
> implementation.
> 
> 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
> can't
> help but wonder if it needs to be specified seperately (read
> "semantically
> 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,
> and
> not something reflected in the identifier itself.
> 
> --- peterd
> 
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Sakimura, Nat wrote:
> 
> > Gabe,
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > GENERAL COMMENTS
> > >
> > > * Do we need to mention addresses that support the concept of
> "multicast"
> > or
> > > "broadcast"? More generally, do we need to have a concept of
> "groups" in
> > XRI
> > > (as distinct from individual resources).
> > >
> >
> > Concept of groups is very useful. We were doing some prototyping on
> XNS
> > server for last 3 months, and "group identity" was very useful.
> >
> > > LINE-BY-LINE COMMENTS
> > [snip]
> > > 471+: This is perhaps and awkward placesment of this requirement
> (GMW: I
> > > don't remember who's comment this is, but I can't figure out a
> better
> > > placement)
> > >
> > I cannot think of any other place either. In fact, this 
> requirement is
> > almost redundant because this is almost automatically granted.
> Nonetheless,
> > it does not to have it spelled out here just to make sure.
> >
> > > 476+: Probably should lose the word "veronymity" in this 
> requirement
> since
> > > a) nobody knows about it and b) it should probably be 
> stated as (at
> the
> > end
> > > of the rquirement) ".. and support the ability to make assertions
> about
> > 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.
> >
>