[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs
I can think of applications where versioning would be a nice feature. I must say though that this would not be a compelling feature for the vast majority of development/architecture work I've done in the past. My recommendation is that versioning not be considered part of the "core" XRI spec, but be added in as a profile/module/conformance level feature. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:25 PM > To: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: RE: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs > > > 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 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]