RE: [xri] Update to Metadata Issue #1: Add $t Tag for Identifier Metadata

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

Drummond-

I have feedback/questions about these requirements (lines starting with
>>>):


1) To have a uniform, interoperable representation in XRI of different
types of identifiers which do not have URI schemes yet are commonly used
in enterprise systems. 

>>> Great requirement. Stated exactly as I would have. See my note after
the >>> feedback.

2) For this uniform representation to facilitate matching in enterprise
directory systems and other applications that need XRI equivalence
checking (see  Syntax Issue #1: Directory Attribute Appendix). 

>>> Fine. Makes sense.

3) For this uniform representation to explicitly include the identifier
type metadata so applications can take advantage of this metadata, for
example to do a type-specific forms of local resolution or determine
equivalent identifiers of other types. 

>>> I think that the specific use cases need to be listed, or at least
criteria for determining if a use case is in or out of scope for this
change proposal. I don't really understand what "take advantage of this
metadata" is. 

4) For this uniform representation to be able to be independent of any
specific authority that may assign identifiers of this type. 

>>> But aren't we saying that these representations are ultimately
rooted in $t, which is defined by the metadata spec, which is *us*? Its
really that the identifier doesn't need to resolve (outside a cross
reference) to any authority, right? We are talking about identifiers for
which there is no central registration (and no uniform resolution
mechanism) (at least not one that is done through XRI). Isn't that the
real requirement here? 

5) For this uniform representation to be able to be expressed in the
context of any authority that assigns or accepts cross-references to
identifiers of this type. 

>>> Is it really about xrefs? Isn't the real requirement that the
identifier be usable in a subsegment - and that using xref is just a
choice of how to address the requirement? 

6) For this uniform representation to be able to be expressed in any
other context which may accept an XRI cross-reference. 

>>> Same as #5.. Is this a real requirement?

7) If identifier type metadata is best managed in a separate namespace,
for management of this namespace to be handled independently of the
Metadata specification and provide mechanisms for third party
registrations. 

>>> Really, this just saying that the list of types is managed
independently of the metadata specification, right? 

SUMMARY NOTE:

In general, I still think that we haven't described the use case for
this proposal very well. I think the use case is best though of as being
"having a way to use external identifier schemes where those external
identifier schemes don't have a URI scheme defined" - because if they
*do* have a URI scheme defined, (e.g. mailto), we *shouldn't* be using
$t... The line of thinking (tell me if I'm wrong) is "well, we need more
identifier schemes that work with XRI, but since other folks haven't
gone through the process of formally defining a URI scheme for these
other identifiers, we'll come along and present an alternate
XRI-specific mechanism for embedding those identifiers in an XRI"... 

Right?

	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12:01 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Update to Metadata Issue #1: Add $t Tag for 
> Identifier Metadata
> 
> Per the discussion in a previous thread
> (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200509/msg00052.html
> ), Metadata
> Issue #1 had been renamed "Add $t Tag for Identifier Types".
> 
> Version 2.0 of the proposal page has been updated to propose 
> adding a new
> "$t" tag to the Metadata which would delegate to a separate XRI TC
> specification, tentatively titled the "XRI Type Specification".
> 
> The full proposal page is at:
> 
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/Xri2Cd02/MetaData/I1IdentifierT
> ypeSection
> 
> Please read this and then continue discussion on the list.
> 
> =Drummond 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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_workgr
> oups.php 
> 
>