- From: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:04:18 -0700
- To: Erik Hetzner <erik.hetzner@ucop.edu>
- Cc: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <D2D2B303-BB9B-42B3-9760-DB41E6CECAB8@wingaa.com>
Hi Erik, I think the specific's of ARK are a bit of a diversion from the main topic. If I understood Henrys suggestion correctly he was proposing using a mechanism similar to ARK for indicating to client applications that they are processing an XRI rather than a http: URL. I don't think the proposal went as far as using ARK itself though I could be wrong about that. There seems to be a diversity of opinions regarding the idea of encoding a special identifier at the start of the http: path segment to indicate that a http: URL is something other than a "plain" http: URL. In the ARK case we seem to be encoding a sub scheme in the URL path. So to use the ARK pattern to encode a XRI it would look like: http://xri.example.org/xri:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phone Persistent identifiers in XRI would use the ! symbol in the XRI part to indicate persistence, as per the XRI 2.0 spec. I don't personally want to pass any judgement on ARK itself. I think it is a valid pattern for us to consider. It remains to be seen if it is the best of the proposals under consideration. Regards John Bradley OASIS IDTRUST-SC http://xri.net/=jbradley On 16-Jul-08, at 4:40 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote: > At Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:12:43 -0700, > "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net> wrote: >> >> I don't think that your analogy is quite right. The problem is not >> that two different URIs address the same resource. The problem is >> that third-parties are encouraged to make general-purpose software >> that pulls apart *any* URI and infers something about it on the >> basis of whether it matches that pattern or not. That software will >> make the wrong inference if it encounters a legacy URI that just >> happens to match the pattern. >> >> […] > > Will this objection hold if third parties do not pull apart any URL, > but only the URLs of organizations that have agreed to be part of ARK? > In other words, if we know that example.org & example.com have agreed > to be a part of ARK, is there a problem with pulling apart > http://ark.example.org/ark:/12345/abcdefg and pointing at > http://ark.example.com/ark:/12345/abcdefg, knowing that example.org, > which no longer exists, was part of the ARK system, and not to pull > apart http://ark.example.net/ark:/12345/abcdeg, a site devoted to > Arkology? > > If this does not address the objection, then I am at a loss for a > solution to the problem of: > > | objects that last longer than the organizations that provide > | services for them, so when the provider changes it should not affect > | the object's identity. [2] > > that: a) provides HTTP URLs which are resolvable now, b) allows for > some simple mechanism to make them resolvable at some point in the > future when the sponsoring organization no longer exists, and c) does > not have a single point of failure (for instance, PURLs). > > best, > Erik Hetzner > > (Here of course speaking only for myself, and not for the California > Digital Library) > > 1. http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/ > ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library > ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 00:05:04 UTC