RE: [xri] Metadata I1 - Identifier Type

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

Mike,

First, sorry for joining this discussion late - our email servers were down
all afternoon for some unknown reason.

Anyway, Marty Schlieff from Boeing has officially joined the TC and been
approved by the Boeing OASIS rep for membership, so he can officially be
part of these discussions. However he's emailed me that he seems not to be
able to post to the list yet, so he's having trouble participating.

Since he is the one most familiar with these requirements, the fastest thing
would probably be to schedule a phone call with Marty. If we can't arrange
to do it before Friday, then we could make it part of the agenda on Friday's
call.

Marty, in the meantime if you still have trouble posting, just send your
emails to Dave or myself and we'll forward them to the list.

=Drummond 

-----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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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