RE: Boeing XRI Use Cases

Hi John (& All),
 
I believe the answer to your "who" questions is the OASIS voters. To
establish an OASIS standard, we don't need W3C approval. We just need to
satisfy the OASIS voters, many of whom voted against XRI because of the W3C
TAG's recommendation against XRI.

Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP 
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist 
Information Security - Technical Controls 
(206) 679-5933 

 

  _____  

From: John Bradley [mailto:john.bradley@wingaa.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:53 AM
To: Mark Baker
Cc: Paul Prescod; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Boeing XRI Use Cases



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
reviewers.

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 OASIS.
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 feedback.

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

Best Regards
John Bradley
OASIS IDTRUST-SC
=jbradley