W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2005

FW: [xri] Clarifications

From: Wachob, Gabe <gwachob@visa.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:31:19 -0700
Message-ID: <57901251A4FD0B4882D999F9FA2FE5A103D993A9@SW720EX017.visa.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
TAG members and others-
    I want to make you aware of an email I posted to the XRI email list
[1]. I wrote this to make sure that evaluation of XRI is (or was) based
on a correct understanding of the XRI TC and its specifications. Though
I infer that the TAG evaluation has concluded or is drawing to a
conclusion, we would still appreciate comments or questions -- those can
be sent to myself or xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
 
    -Gabe
 
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200504/msg00031.html


  _____  

From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:42 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Clarifications


In order to address misconceptions that have arisen during the formal
review process for the XRI specifications, I'd like to make some
clarifications based on our (Visa) understanding of the XRI TC and its
work:
 

(1) XRI is *not* i-names. 

 

(2) Persistence of identifiers is *not* provided by the XRI
specification and is *not* the core feature of XRI. 

 

(3) The "Introduction to XRIs" document has *not* been edited by all
members of the TC and does not yet properly reflect the wide range of
use cases. 

 

(4) The XRI specifications do not imply nor require implementation in
the context of a single, global root.

 

(5) The TC and all its participants agreed to produce the XRI
specifications on a RAND and Royalty Free basis. 

 

    -Gabe

 

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

 Further notes:

 

(1) I-names are an *application* of XRI, as is XDI. A vote for XRI is
not a vote for i-names or XDI. A vote for XRI is *only* a vote for the
XRI specification.

 

(2) While many XRI TC participants are working on
technical/organizational infrastructure and rules for providing
persistence of identifiers, such work is *not* within the scope of the
XRI TC or the XRI specification vote. Furthermore, there is *nothing* in
the XRI TC specifications that requires adherence to these outside
efforts. A vote for the XRI specification is *not* a vote of approval
for these efforts.

 

(3) While I personally regret the "Introduction to XRIs" document not
having been prepared sufficiently for the vote, it is important to note
that a vote for the XRI specifications does *not* imply approval of this
introductory document. Furthermore, this introductory document should
not be considered a limit to the way in which XRIs may be used.

 

(4) Although the specifications reference Global Community Symbols that
may facilitate the organization of a common community root for XRI
implementations, the specifications in no way prevent multiple,
competing root implementations coming to market all using the same
Global Community Symbols. Moreover, many XRI use cases do not use the
Global Community Symbols at all, and instead rely on "private roots"
(using cross references based on URIs). 

 

(5) Nothing to add ;-)

 
__________________________________________________ 
gwachob@visa.com 
Chief Systems Architect 
Technology Strategies and Standards 
Visa International 
Phone: +1.650.432.3696   Fax: +1.650.554.6817 

 
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 00:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:34 GMT