W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [XRI] Back to XRI

From: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:27:21 -0700
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <D2B1920E-3451-442F-B3F5-85DC262D4F87@wingaa.com>
To: elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Hi Elliotte,

To some extent your opinion is reflected in the discussions we are  
having around the HXRI format.

This encodes the required query parameters in a http: URI that can be  
used via a proxy to retrieve metadata for abstract XRI identifiers  
encoded in the path.

It is the belief of some but perhaps not all, that this is acceptable  
Web Architecture.

Some people will argue that the XRI, ARK, PURL and other registries  
that may be consulted are a needless duplication of DNS functionality  
and should be discouraged.

Others argue that those registries provide new abstraction or other  
functionality.

I think the ability to do metadata discovery of an abstract identifier  
is valuable.

People will differ on the best way to achieve this, or if it is a  
valid use case in the first place.

I take it that you are opposed to XRI being a separate scheme with the  
purpose of returning meta-data for abstract identifiers.

Do you have any feelings on integrating XRI into http via the HXRI  
mechanism we have been discussing elsewhere on this list?

Regards
John Bradley
OASIS IDTRUST-SC
http://xri.net/=jbradley
五里霧中


On 7-Aug-08, at 7:59 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:

> John Bradley wrote:
>> Hi Roy,
>> XRI resolution is about retrieving meta data for resources.   It is  
>> not about retrieving resourced http: is about that.
>
> Thanks. That actually makes this discussion clear to me for the  
> first time; and now that I understand it I know where I stand.
>
> IMHO, the difference between metadata and data is mostly in  
> interpretation and solely in the information retrieved. That is, the  
> format of information returned should be independent of the protocol  
> used to retrieve it. We do not have and should not have separate  
> schemes for separate times of information. Separate protocols for  
> metadata and data is like separate protocols for JPEGS and text, or  
> XML and protobufs.
>
> Data formats should be network transport independent. Network  
> protocols should be data format independent.
>
> I'm not sure if that's an explicit principle of the Web  
> architecture. It may have seemed so obvious that no one thought to  
> state it, or realized they were relying on it. However it most  
> certainly is a strong characteristic of layered network protocol  
> design.
>
> -- 
> Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
> Refactoring HTML Just Published!
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0321503635/ref=nosim/ 
> cafeaulaitA




Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 17:28:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:58 UTC