Re: [XRI] XRI-as-Relative-URI proposal (ACTION-189 refers)

Thanks David,

The work to split out the a subset of the spec to be used with URI for  
openID, oAuth, info-cards, and SAML is now getting underway in the XRI- 
TC.  This is tentatively named XRD 3.0 and will be a separate spec by  
the XRI-TC from XRI syntax and resolution.

Given that a good part of the work on the URI side for discovery  
relates to the notion of sub schemes we would welcome your ongoing  
involvement.

During IIW last week meta data discovery was one of the hot topics in  
the identity space.

We will also be starting work on the other parts of the XRI 3.0 spec  
shortly.

Regards
John Bradley

On 18-Nov-08, at 12:51 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:

>
> Since I was active in this discussion earlier I just thought I chime  
> in to say that I agree with Henry's comments.  I think the XRI-as- 
> Relative-URI idea is an excellent direction to go.
>
>
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> HP Software
> +1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
> http://www.hp.com/go/software
>
> Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not  
> necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so  
> stated.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:41 PM
>> To: 'Henry S. Thompson'
>> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; 'Peter Davis'; jbradley@mac.com
>> Subject: RE: [XRI] XRI-as-Relative-URI proposal (ACTION-189 refers)
>>
>>
>> Henry,
>>
>> Thanks very much for the feedback. Sorry to be slow in
>> responding -- last
>> week we held the XRI TC F2F meeting after Internet Identity
>> Workshop in
>> Mountain View.
>>
>> Thankfully you posted your message before the meeting so we
>> were able to
>> discuss it there. See responses inline.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:41 AM
>>> To: Drummond Reed
>>> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; 'Peter Davis'; jbradley@mac.com
>>> Subject: Re: [XRI] XRI-as-Relative-URI proposal (ACTION-189 refers)
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Drummond Reed writes:
>>>
>>>> [There's] a new proposal for how XRIs can better fit with AWWW
>>>> architecture.
>>>> . . .
>>>> The proposal is written up on an XRI TC wiki page at:
>>>>
>>>>    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriAsRelativeUri
>>>
>>>
>>> I've looked at this in some detail, and agree with others' comments
>>> that it looks like a very good direction to move in.
>>>
>>> I think the clarifications that have emerged in this thread wrt what
>>> you call the concrete/abstract distinction are important, and should
>>> be included, very carefully, in the eventual full specification.
>>>
>>> I have two remaining concerns:
>>>
>>> 1) Very little is said about where the necessary base URIs
>> are going
>>>    to come from.  This is almost certainly corrigible
>> going forward,
>>>    that is, in a new specification, although it will have
>> to be done
>>>    carefully, and, I hope, with reference to either the
>> Infoset [base
>>>    URI] property [1] or XML Base [2] insofar as XML-expressed
>>>    languages are concerned.  Retrospective cleanup, for example wrt
>>>    OpenID's usage of 'short' old-style XRIs such as =jbradley, will
>>>    be more challenging, but should none-the-less be attempted I
>>>    think.
>>
>> We agree that the XRI 3.0 specification must provide clear
>> guidance about
>> the base URI. We will be proactive about asking the TAG for
>> review of the
>> XRI 3.0 syntax and bindings specs as they proceed.
>>
>>> 2) I think the list of candidate schemes which may be used in
>>>    XRI-signalling base URIs is too ambitious,
>> unnecessarily so as far
>>>    as I can see.  Including e.g. ftp: is surely to miss the 80-20
>>>    point by a long way.  More seriously, including urn: is a big
>>>    mistake.  There is no well-defined notion of relative URN, or of
>>>    absolutisation for URNs.  URNs are not what RFC 3986 calls
>>>    'hierarchical identifiers', and the RFC says explicitly [3]:
>>>
>>>       "relative references can only be used within the context of a
>>>        hierarchical URI"
>>>
>>>    Please just don't go there!
>>
>> The XRI TC agrees with you that XRI bindings should be to
>> hierarchical URI
>> schemes. At the F2F meeting we concluded that the initial
>> three XRI bindings
>> will be to http:, https:, and info:. We will consider
>> additional bindings as
>> required over time, but these three should give us plenty to
>> get started
>> with.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> =Drummond
>>
>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.element
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
>>> [3] http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-1.2.3
>>> - --
>>>       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University
>> of Edinburgh
>>>                         Half-time member of W3C Team
>>>      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND --
>> (44) 131 650-4440
>>>                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>>                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>>> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without
>> it is forged
>>> spam]
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFJHBJIkjnJixAXWBoRAlZeAKCA92xk8cKVybPpNW3oNj2JlLiJ1gCfehZf
>>> DKtmOZjTB3RSLDfEktpUDoI=
>>> =rif+
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>