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

Re: Boeing XRI Use Cases

From: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:52:55 -0700
Cc: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <67689530-66E2-4302-A808-C1F02056ECAD@wingaa.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>

On 15-Jul-08, at 8:07 AM, Mark Baker wrote:

> On 7/15/08, Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> wrote:
>> Mark: you imply that it is more damaging to the Web to have people  
>> treating
>> URIs as transparent than it is to have new URI schemes which cannot  
>> be
>> interpreted by the huge mass of HTTP-aware software out there. Can  
>> you just
>> if that position?
>> I feel like there are certain irreconcilable goals here:
>> 1. use HTTP URIs (and protocol) for HTTP-only applications
>> 2. add additional functionality beyond HTTP for XRI-aware  
>> applications
>> 3. encode the trigger for that functionality *in the URI* and not  
>> in markup
>> or elsewhere
>> 4. keep URIs opaque
>> Does that seem like a reasonable summary of the situation? If so,  
>> how did
>> you select 4. as the goal to prioritize beyond the others?
> To be blunt, because my interest is in protecting the Web by isolating
> the damage caused by unnecessary technologies.  If the additional
> functionality provided by XRIs were something of terrific value that
> couldn't be provided simply using http URIs and hypermedia, I would
> most certainly be offering different advice.
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Hi Mark,

I give you high credit.

You have always been clear and consistent in communicating your desire  
to prevent fragmentation of the information space.

As I have stated in the past I agree with that in principle.

What we have not yet reached a consensus of opinion is on:
1. Who decides what is an unnecessary technology?
2. What are these standards that new technologies are to be judged by?
3. Who decides what use cases are valid ones?

I for one do not know the answers to those questions.  Otherwise we  
would go to them and make our case for XRI.

We started this thread with XRI use cases submitted by Boeing for the  
W3C's consideration.

Have you reviewed those?   Do you have questions regarding them that  
we could provide answers for?

Are more use cases required,  and who will be reviewing them?

I for one am extremely tired of trying to justify ourselves to unknown  

If technologies must make there case we need to:
1. Make the precess clear
2. Make the precess equitable.
3. Make the reviewers responsibilities clear.
4. Make the reviewers accountable to the community for there decisions.

OASIS is an open organization many of the TAG members also belong to  
We understand the OASIS process.

If people believe that OASIS-TC's must submit there work for  
validation by an external body, please tell us.

That will be an interesting conversation.

The XRI-TC has submitted use cases for review.  We are attempting to  
understand the TAGS concerns around the use of the xri: scheme.
We are attempting to be flexible and remain open to incorporating  

If there is more that is expected of us, please tell us.

Best Regards
John Bradley

Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 15:54:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC