[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Proposed accounting for public comments on XRI Syntax 2.0
Following is a first draft of the proposed accounting for public comments on XRI Syntax 2.0 as required by section 3.4(g) of the OASIS TC process. XRI TC members, please read this over and send ANY feedback to the list prior to noon Pacific time on Monday. Gabe and I will then prepare the final draft. ***** PROPOSED ACCOUNTING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS - FIRST DRAFT ****** Mary: Per section 3.4(g) of the OASIS TC process (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#3.4), following is an accounting for the public comments received on the XRI Syntax 2.0 specification during the following review periods: 1) XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee Draft 01 had a 30-day public review starting March 15, 2005, with a 17-day extension starting April 13, 2005, ending April 30, 2005. (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200503/msg00005.html). 2) XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee Draft 02 had a 15-day public review starting 18 October 2005, ending 2 November 2005. (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200504/msg00004.html). The following comments were received during the first public review period on XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee Draft 01 (note that this public review period also included XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 01 and XRI Metadata 2.0 Committee Draft 01.) #1) Jerome Jump, Epok http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200503/msg00000.html #2) Dan Connolly, W3C http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200504/msg00000.html #3) W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200504/msg00003.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200505/msg00000.html #4) Mark Baker, Coactus http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200504/msg00004.html One comment was received during the second public review period on XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee Draft 02: #5) Norm Walsh, Sun http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200510/msg00000.html XRI TC RESPONSE Comment #1 from Jerome Jump of Epok was relative to the XRI Resolution 2.0 specification, which is a not at this time being submitted for consideration as an OASIS Standard. Mr. Jump pointed out a minor errata and suggested alternative formatting of the XML examples in the specification. Both of these have been incorporated in a subsequent working draft of XRI Resolution 2.0. Comment #2 from Dan Connolly of the W3C made the suggestion that the OASIS XRI TC should register "xri:" as a URI scheme with the IETF as part of preparing for wide deployment. Technically the XRI Syntax 2.0 specification creates a new identifier that has a defined transformation into an IRI normal form and a URI normal form. The XRI TC does intend to pursue IETF registration of the xri: scheme for XRIs in IRI and URI normal form once XRI Syntax 2.0 reaches OASIS Standard status. Comments #3 from the W3C TAG was subsequently referenced by comment #5 from Norm Walsh and is discussed below. Comment #4 from Mark Baker was a very brief statement arguing against the deployment of any new abstract identifier scheme and favored reuse of the HTTP URI scheme. The W3C TAG's comments focused almost exclusively on the use of XRIs to solve the problem of persistent identification. They felt that the ways in which XRIs solve this problem using an additional layer of indirection can also be achieved using HTTP URIs, and that the costs of deploying the XRI scheme for persistent identification would not be overcome by its benefits. The TAG summarized their comments as follows: "The recommendations that we have documented in Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One state that "A specification SHOULD reuse an existing URI scheme (rather than create a new one) when it provides the desired properties of identifiers and their relation to resources." [2] In this case, a properly managed and supported use of the existing http scheme, based on the excellent analysis in your documents, does have the desired properties and can provide the same functionality without the loss of interoperability which would accompany a new scheme." [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#URI-scheme The XRI was chartered in January 2003 because, after considerable research, its organizers concluded that no URI scheme, including the HTTP and URN schemes, provided "the desired properties of identifiers and their relation to resources" when the desired properties were those of uniform abstract identification, i.e., a consistent way of identifying resources independent of domain, location, application, and interaction method. In particular, the HTTP URI scheme did not (and could not) fulfill this requirement because the vast majority of identifiers produced using this scheme: a) are concrete identifiers (identifiers tied to a particular domain, directory, application, or device), and b) have (by definition) a specific method of interaction (HTTP). As further evidence, one reason the URN scheme (the closest thing to a URI scheme for abstract identification) was developed at the IETF was because the HTTP URI scheme did not include syntax for uniform persistent identification of resources. More importantly, however, persistence is only one requirement of uniform abstract identifiers (and in fact one that does not apply in many use cases.) Six additional categories of requirements were enumerated in the XRI TC requirements document. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/2523/xri-requirements-and- glossary-v1.0.doc Two of the most important are: 1) Uniform cross-context identification. This is the requirement to be able to share identifiers across hierarchies (multiple domains and applications) with uniform interpretation (a directory concept known as polyarchy.) XRI Syntax 2.0 provides a specific construct -- cross-references -- for this purpose. Cross-reference syntax is particularly useful with identifier metadata; so useful that the XRI TC publishes an entire specification (XRI Metadata 2.0) for the purpose of establishing uniform metadata for expressing the language, date, and version of an identifier. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/11854/xri-metadata-V2.0-cd -01.pdf Furthermore, since the public review of XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee Draft 01 in March, new participants have joined the XRI TC expressly to develop metadata for expressing the type of an identifier. This new form of metadata can help solve longstanding interoperability problems when legacy identifiers of a specific type (OIDs, UIDs, distinguished names, usernames, etc.) need to be federated across enterprises. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200509/msg00048.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200509/msg00108.html (see topic #3) 2) Uniform federation. The generic URI syntax and the HTTP URI scheme support delegation syntax only in the authority segment, and then only for IP addresses and DNS names. XRI Syntax 2.0 provides uniform federation syntax for both persistent and reassignable identifiers at any level of hierarchy. This capability is particular useful in conjunction with XRI cross-reference syntax, as it enables identifier authorities at all levels of hierarchy to delegate identifiers using shared "dictionaries". As stated in the XRI TC's charter and requirements document, the goal of the XRI TC was to create a single uniform identifier syntax that met these and four other categories of requirements. Such a syntax could lead to the same widespread benefits from a uniform abstract identifiers that the Web currently enjoys from URIs and IRIs as uniform concrete identifiers. We believe XRI Syntax 2.0 fulfills these requirements and recommend its advancement to an OASIS Standard.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]