RE: [xri] XRI comments from W3C TAG

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

Jamie,

Thanks very much for your summary of the current status. Just to reinterate
the TC's plan based on our conversations on this subject in January:

#1: We plan to first finish the XRI 2.0 suite of specifications. With XRI
Resolution 2.0 nearing completion, that leaves just XRI Metadata 2.0 and XRI
Type Metadata 2.0, which are also maturing, so we don't think this will take
much longer. These new specifications will then need to undergo public
review.

#2: We then want to prepare a document and powerpoint explaining the XRI
problem space, the use cases for which TC members are adopting XRI syntax
and resolution, and how XRI adoption is already happening in the market. We
think this will go a long ways towards explaining the business case for XRI
and help dispel a number of misconceptions about it with respect to HTTP
URIs, URNs, and other types of identifiers.

#3: With these materials we then hope to have in-depth conversations
explaining XRI and answering questions form the W3C TAG, other OASIS
members, and industry analysts.

Once we have completed this cycle of activities, the XRI 2.0 specification
suite should be ready for a full OASIS Standard vote.

Best,

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 6:32 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: drummond.reed@cordance.net; gwachob@visa.com; ram.kumar@oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] XRI comments from W3C TAG

    You will recall that we received some comments about XRI from the W3C 
Technical Architecture Group and affiliated parties during an OASIS public 
review of XRI material:  see 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200511/msg00081.html.   I am 
sending this note just to confirm recent conversations about our current 
plans regarding them.

     We'd heard that the W3C TAG may have expressed concern last Autumn 
that their mostly-adverse comments about XRI were not answered.   The OASIS 
XRI TC did respond to the comments as the OASIS rules require, as reflected 
in the disposition log and public postings;  however, those rules do not 
dictate separate return correspondence from the TC to each commenting 
member of the public.

     Earlier this year, we discussed the possibility that the TC might 
nevertheless wish to engage the W3C TAG directly by an elective reply.   We 
discussed some of the likely issues and arguments in TC conference 
calls.  Instead of advancing the XRI Syntax v2.0 spec at that time, by 
itself, the TC elected to postpone that spec (and the reply) until 
additional pieces of the work were completed.  Instead, the TC indicated 
that you plan to provide a broader set of specs for wide review later this 
year, along with more information on current instances of adoption and 
business use cases.  Of course, any specific constructive criticism from 
the W3C group  will be most welcome as well.

     If we are asked by our W3C colleagues about the work, we will confirm 
that the TC and OASIS plan to reply in more detail later this year, once an 
expanded package is ready for public review and further discussion.

     Mary and Ram and I tremendously enjoyed seeing many of you in San 
Francisco at the live meetings last week.  We are proud to have OASIS 
associated with the XRI and XDI efforts, and delighted with your continued 
success and accelerating popularity among business users.

     Best regards   Jamie Clark

~   James Bryce Clark
~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
~   jamie.clark@oasis-open.org 


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