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


Actually, I'm not sure that NAC has the energy to define very many
"types", especially in time for the v2 spec.  I think NAC might be able
to define one or two types in the next few weeks. Others might be
defined by other bodies on some other schedule.

Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(425) 957-5667

-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:02 PM
To: 'Lindelsee, Mike '; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Metadata I1 - Identifier Type

[Apoligies in advance - it appears my backed-up emails arrived in
reverse thread order, so I got to this last.]

Mike,

The scope of the XRI Metadata spec is, to quote from section 1.1,
Purpose of this Specification:

"The purpose of this specification is to define a set of XRIs in the $
namespace that function as identifier metadata - attributes that may be
used describe an identifier itself, as opposed to attributes of the
resource it identifies."

The proposal from Boeing is for the XRI TC to work with the Network
Applications Consortium Identifier Semantics Workgroup to do just that:
define metadata that used to describe an identifier itself - in this
case, its type.

My understanding is that there are approximately a dozen types of
identifiers widely used in enterprise infrastructure that would fall
under this requirement. The NAC is willing to work with the TC to help
define these.

This strikes me as precisely what we intended the Metadata specification
for. What am I missing?

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 4:02 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
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
>
>

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



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