RE: [xri] Comments on WD10ED05

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

I strongly agree that this material is needed SOMEWHERE. However we seem to
be rehashing the basic premise we agreed to last fall that the main spec
should only have normative text, and that non-normative examples should be
added only where absolutely necessary for clarity (which is very different
than CD01).

That's why we proposed to have the Implementer's Guide. Are we still going
to do that? I agree with Gabe's suggestion that we don't want to cite a
non-normative doc we haven't even written yet, but is someone going to step
up and write it?

If we are going to add extensive examples to the spec itself, I'd strongly
suggest we do them in an Appendix where we can clearly mark them as
non-normative. I'd also suggest that if at all possible they serve the dual
purpose of being the actual test cases for interoperability.

Another option is that we publish the examples in a separate
interoperability test case document.

In regards to the "resolution architecture" section, I agree that something
a little more expanded than what we have makes sense. So far we've just been
trying to concentrate on normative content so we could get to interoperable
implementations, and now looking at wording/presentation issues is starting
to become relevant.

I'm too close to the spec at this point to do a good job with a "resolution
architecture" section. Is anyone willing to take a first crack at it (even
if rough - I'm happy to help do polishing/wordsmithing.)

All of these are issues I'll put on the agenda for tomorrow's 4PM Pacific
call.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Grey [mailto:victor@idcommons.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:49 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] Comments on WD10ED05

Wachob, Gabe wrote:
>  I think there needs to be a "resolution architecture" section like we 
> used to have in earlier drafts. Its really hard to understand how all 
> this stuff is supposed to hang together without at least something 
> like we used to have demonstrating the various phases of resolution

I strongly second this emotion. We need at least two example sections, 
one demonstrating the resolution of an XRI with a multi-subsegment 
authority section, and one demonstrating the resolution of an XRI with 
a path component, if we are to have any hope of being comprehensible to 
the uninitiated.

Also, section 4.2 introduces the term Query XRI (QXRI), but I can't 
find anywhere beforehand where this is defined. HXRI and QXRI are 
important concepts that need their own little section to clearly 
delineate their meaning.

=vg


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