[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded
Peter, can you comment on the applicability of DDDS based resolution to IRIs? Can POSIX-based regular expressions deal with identifiers expressed in Unicode? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:06 AM To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded Gabe, Conceptually, IRI has larger set than URI (IRI includes URI), but both are countable and thus can be mapped one to one, I think. Could you give me an example of mapping one URI to multiple IRIs please? Fundamentally, the question for us probably is "do we really want to be bound by this aging URI standard?" To me, URI v.s. IRI controversy is largely due to the backward compatibility issues. If we think afresh, we probably do not choose URI to be the normative format because it is the source of milliard of problems for I18N. Unicode is not perfect (some purists say that it is useless - it generally cannot distinguish among similar but distinct characters because these are collapsed into one), but is much cleaner. Resolution does not have to go through the transformation to URI. Our internationalized identifier should be able to be resolved directly. On equivalence: I think URI equivalence arguments do not affect us. This is because we have abstract permanent identifier, which can be pretty restrictive in the allowed character set as we do not need the human readability. To test the equivalence of two identifiers, we should resolve to the permanent identifier and compare them. To protect the privacy, we might not want to expose the permanent identifier. In this case, the proxy should give out True/False result. We have a much powerful tool than URIs in this regard. Nat -----Original Message----- From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 4:25 AM To: 'Drummond Reed'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded Drummond- A few notes. First, in section 3.4.5 (you said 3.3.5) - "non-resolvable syntax" - whats the use case? Why do we need to *prevent* an attempt to resolve? Why would a software component resolve an identifier unless it needed to? It seems like there are only two cases: a piece of software needs to resolve the identifier, or it doesn't. This decision is based on application semantics, not the syntax of the identifier. How does marking an identifier as "non-resolvable" help at all? In section 3.4.6 (internationalization) - there is a discussiong going on at the W3C TAG (issue named something like "IRIEverywhere") where the appropriateness of where IRIs should be used is being discussed. It is clear, for example, that IRIs cannot be used everywhere URIs can be used. The issue is whether *future* specs should refer to IRIs or URIs. An IRI can be "cast down" into a URI unambiguously, but because there are several ways to translate unicode into ascii, its not always possible to unambigously convert an URI back into an IRI (without some context like the encoding used to go from IRI to URI). So, while I think we should definitely address IRIs and XRIs, I don't think XRIs should expect to be solving the problems that IRIs have with the relationshipt to URIs. We *could* propose a way to encode the things that are needed to unambiguously convert a URI back into an IRI, but I'm guessing that would actually break the IRI spec. I'm going out beyond my competency ! here I think. Bottom line is that we either have to wait for the IRI things to shake out, or we have to tread new ground in i18n. I *definitely* want XRIs to be "i18n enabled", but I'm a little worried about us planning on achieving that in the short term by relying on IRIs. This document has come a LONG way and I think does a pretty good job of identifying why we are all here. Congrats and thanks to all those who contributed. I'm sure there will be more input and fixes to the doc, but I feel like we're very close to the "good enough" state where we can then concentrate on the syntax and resolution specs. -Gabe > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 11:45 AM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Groups - > xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded > > > First, let me note two reasons for posting v5b: > > 1) I found out from Marc Le Maitre this morning that leaving "Track > Changes" on screwed up the section numbering, so it makes it difficult > to talk about requirement numbers. Let's use v5b on the call today. > > 2) There was an MS Word cross-reference error (unfortunately not all > that uncommon) in 3.4.7 that needed fixing. > > Please make any edits to this clean version after making sure "Track > Changes" is turned on. > > I will review the key updates on the TC call this afternoon, but the > major areas to review are: > > * Sections 2.1 - 2.3 of the Motivations section. These were rewritten > for the third time to reflect the consensus regarding terminology. > > * Requirement 3.1.2 was rewritten to reflect the URN conformance topic > as discussed on the list. > > * The original requirements section 3.3 was broken into the > new sections > 3.3 and 3.4 to reflect the clarifications in 2.2 and 2.3 about > persistence and HFIs/MFIs. > > * 3.3.5 (Non-Resolvable Syntax) was added to reflect a > requirement Marc > Le Maitre has surfaced from the Namespace committee of the > U.S. XML.gov > working group. > > * 3.4.6 (Internationalization) was edited to reflect Nat's input > regarding IRIs. We should discuss this on today's call. > > * The Glossary was updated and all TO DO's in it were finished. > > The only remaining TO DOs are a few entries in the > informative glossary > and Appendix A (Acknowledgments). > > Talk to everyone at 3pm PDT. > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 11:13 AM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Groups - xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc uploaded > > The document xri-requirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc has been submitted by > Drummond Reed (drummond.reed@onename.com) to the Extensible Resource > Identifier TC document repository. > > Document Description: > v5b of XRI Requirements and Glossary - This is a CLEAN version with a > faulty MS Word cross-reference fixed. Please submit any edits > using this > version. > > Download Document: > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/download.php/ > 2050/xri-r > equirements-1.0-draft-05b.doc > > View Document Details: > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/document.php? > document_i > d=2050 > > > PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email > application > may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and > paste > the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. > > -OASIS Open Administration > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave_workgroup.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]