29 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.xriRE: [xri] Property, rel comparison| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Eran Hammer-Lahav | Jan 25, 2010 9:04 am | |
| Eran Hammer-Lahav | Jan 25, 2010 9:06 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 25, 2010 9:16 am | |
| Eran Hammer-Lahav | Jan 25, 2010 9:20 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 25, 2010 9:37 am | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 25, 2010 9:44 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 25, 2010 10:24 am | |
| Drummond Reed | Jan 26, 2010 12:08 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 6:59 am | |
| Drummond Reed | Jan 26, 2010 7:31 am | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 26, 2010 8:31 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 8:38 am | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 26, 2010 8:57 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 9:00 am | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 26, 2010 9:06 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 9:13 am | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 26, 2010 9:19 am | |
| Eran Hammer-Lahav | Jan 26, 2010 9:20 am | |
| Eran Hammer-Lahav | Jan 26, 2010 9:24 am | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 26, 2010 9:29 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 9:38 am | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 26, 2010 9:42 am | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 10:02 am | |
| Eran Hammer-Lahav | Jan 26, 2010 12:26 pm | |
| Eran Hammer-Lahav | Jan 26, 2010 12:32 pm | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 12:44 pm | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 12:46 pm | |
| Breno de Medeiros | Jan 26, 2010 1:02 pm | |
| Scott Cantor | Jan 26, 2010 1:47 pm |
| Subject: | RE: [xri] Property, rel comparison | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Scott Cantor (cant...@osu.edu) | |
| Date: | Jan 26, 2010 9:38:37 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.xri | |
Breno de Medeiros wrote on 2010-01-26:
I strongly disagree. Subject comparison is always application specific
and
should be noted as such. We already have processing rules for trust purposes and I am sure it will extend to pretty much any application that uses subjects. Subject point to a resource and therefore are scheme-specific and obey by those rules.
If it's application-specific, then it's not scheme-specific either, it's just application-specific.
Okay, and do you want to define rules for these in the spec? Or rely on existing scheme-based normalization?
Either there's an existing reference or there isn't. Eran was saying earlier there isn't, but I think it's moot if the rules are NOT in fact scheme-specific but left to applications to define.
Relation types and property types URIs on the other hand are strings
structured like URIs. They should follow the same rules as XML namespaces and should not be normalized. There is no reason what-so-ever for anyone to use different variations of these URIs - that's where interop breaks.
Okay, in this case, I propose we have rules on valid names that make normalization unnecessary.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting there. The set of valid names is simply the set of absolute URIs; it can't be restricted further, can it? It's not good practice to include certain constructs in such URIs, like ports, but it can't really be made illegal.
Either way, the property type questions should be resolved the same way
the relation type question, and that is going to come from Web Linking since we already bound it to that.
I was under the impression that document isn't done. We can't update a normative reference on our end after CD without repeating CD, so if we're dependent on that spec, we would have a timing mismatch.
-- Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php