Accounting for public comments on XRI Syntax 2.0

[<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

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 by the XRI TC 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. The announcement was published at:

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. The announcement was published at:

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 one 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, and subsequently shared by comment #5 from
Norm Walsh, is discussed below.

Comment #4 from Mark Baker was a very brief statement against the deployment
of any new abstract identifier scheme and favoring 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 of resources. With regard to
this requirement, the TAG stated:

"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." [1] 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."

The XRI Requirements document [2], produced by the XRI TC in June 2003,
enumerates seven categories of requirements for uniform abstract
identifiers, i.e., identifiers that provide a consistent, interoperable
means of identifying resources independent of domain, location, application,
and means of interaction. The http URI scheme does not meet these
requirements, specifically because most http URIs are concrete identifiers
(identifiers tied to a particular domain, directory, application, or device)
and all http URIs have by definition a specific method of interaction
(http). 

Another key requirement for uniform abstract identifiers not supported by
http URIs or other URI schemes is uniform cross-context identification --
the ability to share identifiers across hierarchies (different domains and
applications) with consistent interpretation (a directory concept known as
polyarchy.) XRI Syntax 2.0 provides a specific construct -- cross-references
-- for this purpose. Cross-references are particularly useful for identifier
metadata; so useful that the XRI TC publishes a separate specification (XRI
Metadata) for the purpose of establishing uniform metadata for expressing
the language, date, and version of an identifier [3]. Since the public
review of XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee Draft 01 in March, new participants
including Boeing have joined the XRI TC expressly for the purpose of
developing interoperable identifier type metadata using XRI
cross-references.

XRI Syntax 2.0 was developed over three years to meet all seven categories
of requirements for uniform abstract identifiers. The XRI TC is pleased to
submit it to OASIS membership for consideration as an OASIS Standard.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#URI-scheme 
[2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/2523/xri-requirements-and-
glossary-v1.0.doc 
[3]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/11854/xri-metadata-V2.0-cd
-01.pdf
[4] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200509/msg00048.html