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: RE: [xri] Metadata I1 - Identifier Type


While the motivation is sound -- having an ambiguous tag would be a real
problem -- I'm concerned about the scope of this issue.  I don't see it
as part of the XRI TC's charter to be normatively defining tags for
things.  There are a host of other bodies that are working on this sort
of thing (Dublin Core comes to mind).  Can we just refer to the
appropriate specifications instead of actually specifying new tags?  I
think that would be well within our charter.

Mike 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] 
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:48 PM
>To: Lindelsee, Mike ; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [xri] Metadata I1 - Identifier Type
>
>The idea is that there should be a standardized, canonical
>representation of various common identifier types - a standard way to
>represent something like an employee number in an XRI, for example. The
>+ namespace isn't sufficient for this because there's no authority to
>give it an official definition.
>
>The request, which came from external parties, is that the TC publish
>these canonical representations to promote interoperability. They've
>volunteered to most of the work on putting these together.
>
>Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:01 PM
>> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [xri] Metadata I1 - Identifier Type
>> 
>> I thought I'd start a round of discussion on the various issues.  I
>> noted that this issue doesn't have a proposal page yet.  I'd request
>> that we start with a list of requirements instead of jumping straight
>to
>> solutions.  That way we will all be able to understand if a solution
>is
>> sufficient and if those requirements are requirements that 
>the TC as a
>> whole feels need to be met (or can be met in other ways).
>> 
>> My initial thought is that identifiers/segments/subsegments 
>can easily
>> be identified by using the + namespace.  I don't see any reason that
>new
>> text would need to be added to the spec(s) to support this 
>capability.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all 
>your TCs in
>> OASIS
>> at:
>> 
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>


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