RE: [xri] Property, rel comparison

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

Breno de Medeiros wrote on 2010-01-26:
>> I strongly disagree. Subject comparison is always application specific
and
> should be noted as such. We already have processing rules for trust
purposes
> and I am sure it will extend to pretty much any application that uses
> subjects. Subject point to a resource and therefore are scheme-specific
and
> obey by those rules.

If it's application-specific, then it's not scheme-specific either, it's
just application-specific.

> Okay, and do you want to define rules for these in the spec? Or rely
> on existing scheme-based normalization?

Either there's an existing reference or there isn't. Eran was saying earlier
there isn't, but I think it's moot if the rules are NOT in fact
scheme-specific but left to applications to define.

>> Relation types and property types URIs on the other hand are strings
> structured like URIs. They should follow the same rules as XML namespaces
> and should not be normalized. There is no reason what-so-ever for anyone
to
> use different variations of these URIs - that's where interop breaks.
> 
> Okay, in this case, I propose we have rules on valid names that make
> normalization unnecessary.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting there. The set of valid names is simply
the set of absolute URIs; it can't be restricted further, can it? It's not
good practice to include certain constructs in such URIs, like ports, but it
can't really be made illegal.

>> Either way, the property type questions should be resolved the same way
> the relation type question, and that is going to come from Web Linking
since
> we already bound it to that.

I was under the impression that document isn't done. We can't update a
normative reference on our end after CD without repeating CD, so if we're
dependent on that spec, we would have a timing mismatch.

-- Scott