Re: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

["Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>]

Hi All,

I thought I'd explain my vote. I used to favor "compact syntax" but not "direct concatenization", so I might have voted +.5 in the past. However, just today I encountered the example of "=steven.churchill@microsoft.com" and mistook it for an email address instead of an example of compact syntax and/or direct concatenization. However, I'm not too embarrassed by the mistake, because after all, I've only been working with XRI for a liilte more than two years, and because the BlackBerry on which I'm typing this message also considers it an email address. So, now my vote is both against direct concatenization AND against compact syntax. 
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
To: 'Tan, William' <William.Tan@neustar.biz>; xri@lists.oasis-open.org <xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tue May 01 15:40:33 2007
Subject: RE: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

+1 (of course).

I'm deeply concerned about the apparent complexity issue because when
communicate with "non-XRI"-aware users and developers (such as here at the
Higgins f2f in Austin), concatenated syntax is the brain-dead simple option
and parenthetical cross-reference syntax is the "hard to wrap your head
around" option.

Secondly, as I've said a number of times, the XDI RDF model uses it very
extensively. 

This reinforces the sense I had that this issue was not really resolved in
San Diego, i.e., even though we did a straw poll there, there was still a
deep division over this issue. 

So we need to "go deeper" as a TC. I'll make it the lead agenda item on this
week's telecon on Thursday (especially since that's the last call on which
we'll have Wil for the next month).

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tan, William [mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:25 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

We did an informal poll at the f2f two weeks ago on whether we should 
stick with XRI Syntax 2.0. I suggest we vote again on the list.

+1 - to support concatenated syntax
0 - don't care
-1 - no concatenated syntax

I'm reverting my vote to -1 because the solution is too confusing IMHO.

=wil