OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xri] How can http: URIs meet URN requirements?

Another strike against using http: schema URLs:  HTTP transport coupling. 
To me one of the biggest benefits of XRIs was independence of resolution transport, i.e. XRIs are to data identifiers what XML is to data.  URIs/URNs could fit the bill, but there's a different resolution mechanism for every URN namespace, if one exists for that namespace. XRIs provided a logical resolution mechanism that could be mapped to any physical transport, and was mapped to HTTP as an example.  This means you could have SIP-backed XRIs, XMPP-backed XRIs, Jini-backed XRIs, etc.
I realize that some have the view that http: schema on a URL does not imply use of HTTP to access that resource, but I find that counter-intuitive.  The schema on a URL serves exactly the purpose of a mapping to an access protocol in my experience, albeit limited when compared against that of the TAG. 
A use of a persistent abstract identifier within the http: schema space also exists and has not caught on due to various issues: purl.org. 
So if we went the http: route we would in my opinion be deciding on a vision of the data web that is an HTTP-based data web. If that's what we really want to do then fine. It is definitely not what I want, since my stuff centers on XMPP, AMQP, and SIP.  I also feel the HTTP data web will be a subset of the eventual data web and that we will see a mashup of transport protocols as we see a mashup of different device types becoming data nodes (i.e. data web nodes).
Bill Barnhill


From: Peter Davis
Sent: Thu 8/14/2008 9:33 AM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] How can http: URIs meet URN requirements?

the argument being made for accomplishing persistence in the http:  
scheme requires the a domain (at some arbitrary level), carry a policy  
of persistence.  thus, if a 2nd level name (eg: xri.net) stated that  
it will guarantee persistence in it's namespace.  thus http://peterd.xri.net 
  will never get re-assigned.

I cannot say i fully agree, but that is the "solution" which has been  


On Aug 14, 2008, at 3:50 AM, Drummond Reed wrote:

> So here's the issue: the TAG has asserted (back during the OASIS  
> vote in
> May) that all XRI requirements can be met by HTTP identifiers. While  
> we have
> many other requirements beside persistence for which we do not  
> believe that
> to be true, I don't think we need look any further than these very  
> simple
> URN requirements. I've thought about this for hours and I cannot see  
> how
> existing http: URIs can meet them.
> The logic is not complex:
> 1) The http: scheme does not require http: URIs to be persistent.
> 2) The http: scheme does not define any syntax for indicating  
> persistence.

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]