[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Update to Metadata Issue #1: Add $t Tag for Identifier Metadata
Hi All, Regarding #3: I think this just means if an application encounters an XRI including something like ($t*uuidpair), the application will be able to know that it can use a different aproach for resolution (Open Group proposes a pair of UUIDs where one represents the issuing authority that can be looked-up for resolution purposes). It's not XRI resolution, it's UUID Pair resolution. - Or, if an application encounters an XRI including something like ($t*dn), the application could know that it might have to first do some normalization on the DN values before doing a string comparison (or whatever the comparison rules are). - Or, if an application encounters an XRI including something like ($t*otps), the application will know that the identifier is a one time pseudonymn so it shouldn't bother establishing a local profile for that identifier, because it will never be used again. - Or, if an application encounters an XRI including something like ($t*IP), the application will know it represents an IP address that it might be able to ping rather than an OID. Regarding #4: I'm not sure I understand this one either. I think it means any issuer if identifiers could issue them with any identifier type. I don't think it means anyone can define a new identifier type under $t. Am I close? Regarding SUMMARY NOTE: If I think of it from the perspective of an XRI resolver, I think it would be better to express even a mailto within XRI with a $t. That way, software will be able to recognize it as an XRI and invoke their XRI processor which will know how to deal with it. I may be dreaming, but it seems that way down the road we could define an XRI type definition language that we use to describe the caracteristics of each identifier type. Then the XRI resolver wouldn't even have to understand what is meant by ($t*mailto); instead it could just lookup the characteristics of mailto and process it accordingly. Such XRI resolver applications would not need to be enhanced whenever new identifier types are introduced; they'd only require modification when the type description language changes. Am I dreaming too large? Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist Computing Security Infrastructure (425) 957-5667 -----Original Message----- From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:09 PM To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xri] Update to Metadata Issue #1: Add $t Tag for Identifier Metadata 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]