RE: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs

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

I really like the XRI-cross-reference-as-version-tag, but I think it conflicts with the human usability aspect (drummond? dave mcalpin? I think this is more important a concern to them). 

I tend to agree with you that providing a syntax for versions doesn't import the complexity inherent in using and interpreting those versions. 

Does anybody else have opinions on the threshold question of whether or not to support version syntax, in general?

	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 7:49 AM
> To: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: Re: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs
> 
> 
> Wachob, Gabe wrote:
> 
> >I'm not sure there's been a lot of discussion (relative to a 
> lot of other topics) about versioning, but there seems to be 
> a consensus among those on the TAG that versioning of URIs is 
> a nonstarter. I'm not sure that they've really explained the 
> issue with versioning besides to say "its complicated". I 
> happen to agree that the interpretation of versions can be 
> complicated, but I am not sure if we are going to deal with 
> that complication here or whether it becomes an application 
> issue (for applications using versioned XRIs). 
> >
> >  
> >
> While i agree with TBL that versioning is complicated, it is only so 
> when one attempts to apply "meaning" to the version 
> identifier.  I think 
> this IS an application/implimentation issue, best left out of 
> scope for 
> XRI.  Simply providing a means to express versions within the 
> structure 
> should be our aim, not detailed normative text attempting to 
> sovle the 
> problem.
> 
> In fact, now that i think about it, the version string could 
> be an XRI 
> itself, resolving to the specification of the versioning notation 
> employed for this instance of the resource, as well as the version 
> identifier (whatever that is is determined by the version 
> sepcification 
> itself). Continuing the "host version" thread:
> 
>     host[@urn:dns:versionspec:serial:2002030415].foo.biz/this/resource
> 
> (@ was arbitrary on my part.... versioning specifications may 
> have IPR 
> attached to them??).
> So dereferencing urn:dns:versionspec:serial provides the semantics of 
> "things to the right"...
> 
> --- peterd
>