Re: [XRI] Private naming conventions and hypermedia

Hi Mark,

I am going to use the IRI form with the xri: scheme in my examples as  
that is what is currently in the spec.
the proposed HXRI forms add additional complexity.

Remember XRI is more like DNS resolution than http:

The process of dereferencing an XRI via native resolution always  
results in a XRDS document containing a CannonicalID element
  <CanonicalID>xri://@!1</CanonicalID>

Any number of XRI may resolve to the same CID

As an example
xri://@id*fmof
xri://@id*五里霧中
xri://@id*gorimuchuu
xri://@!B1E8.C27B.E41C.25C3!A7B8.4D42.3EF6.C2A9

All of these deference to an XRDS document  with a CannonicalID  
element in the final XRD containing
<CanonicalID>xri://@!B1E8.C27B.E41C.25C3!A7B8.4D42.3EF6.C2A9</ 
CanonicalID>

The process of dereferencing a XRI maps the identifier to a uniques  
entity described by an XRD

Each XRI identifier may produce a different XRDS document during  
resolution depending on the path through the XRI graph it takes.
The sequence of XRD's in a XRDS are determined by XRD refs and XRI  
cross-references encountered during the resolution of the authority  
sub segments.
However equivalence is determined via the contents of the final XRD.

If you look closely at the CID you will notice that it contains  
subsegments prefixed with !.

The ! indicates a persistent subsegment.

The Syntax spec states:

> An XRI consisting entirely of persistent segments is designed to  
> meet the requirements set out in Functional Requirements for Uniform  
> Resource Names [RFC1737].
>
> XRI syntax extends generic IRI syntax in the following four ways:
>
>  • Persistent and reassignable segments. Unlike generic URI syntax,  
> XRI syntax allows the internal components of an XRI reference to be  
> explicitly designated as either persistent or reassignable.
>
>  • Cross-references. Cross-references allow XRI references to  
> contain other XRI references or IRIs as syntactically-delimited sub- 
> segments. This provides syntactic support for “compound  
> identifiers”, i.e., the use of well-known, fully-qualified  
> identifiers within the context of another XRI reference. Typical  
> uses of cross-references include using well-known types of metadata  
> in an XRI reference (such as language or versioning metadata), or  
> the use of globally-defined identifiers to mark parts of an XRI  
> reference as having application- or vocabulary-specific semantics.
>
>  • Additional authority types. While XRI syntax supports the same  
> generic syntax used in IRIs for DNS and IP authorities, it also  
> provides two additional options for identifying an authority: a)  
> global context symbols (GCS), shorthand characters used for  
> establishing the abstract global context of an identifier, and b)  
> cross-references, which enable any identifier to be used to specify  
> an XRI authority.
>
>  • Standardized federation. Federated identifiers are those  
> delegated across multiple authorities, such as DNS names. Generic  
> URI syntax leaves the syntax for federated identifiers up to  
> individual URI schemes, with the exception of explicit support for  
> IP addresses. XRI syntax standardizes federation of both persistent  
> and reassignable identifiers at any level of the path.
>

This leads us to the question of what do we all mean by "Persistence"

In ARK I think that persistence is meant as some indication that the  
"Data/Meta Data"  pointed to by a specially formated URL path is  
intended to be the same as data pointed to by the same specially  
formated path under a different authority.

This would seem on first examination completely different use case  
compared to the "Persistence"  provided by XRI syntax and resolution.


In XRI there are two basic subsegment types:
1. Reassignable,  These identifiers can be re-used and move from one  
persons control to another they may be reconfigured to point to any  
CannonicalID at any time for any reason under the control of the  
person or organization who has administrative control of the identifyer.

2. Persistent,  "Not Reassignable"  These entities will by  
administration policy will not change owner, or be reassigned in any  
way.

Nether of these say anything about the contents of the XRDS,  the  
contents of a given XRD associated with a CID can change at any time.

In XRI persistence is a quality of the identifier not the data.

In ARK Persistence is a quality of the data not the identifier.   A  
given ARK URL may or may not exist at any point.  The only thin that  
may be persistent aside from the data would be the URI path.

I find the concept of a persistent URL path without a persistent URL  
authority a bit of a slippery one.

People will raise the question of what is a good administrative  
authority who adheres to the rules vs a bad one.

XRI and ARK have to answer that question to there constituent  
communities.

What ARK and XRI both enable is a syntactical way of communicating  
persistence.

Though I would argue different notions of persistence.

When we look at HXRI the http: proxy starts attracting some of the  
problems encountered by ARK.

Take one of my above examples as a HXRI:

http://xri.net/@!B1E8.C27B.E41C.25C3!A7B8.4D42.3EF6.C2A9

I have now mixed what may be an in-persistent DNS authority with a  
persistent XRI.
I have certainly lost the benefit of it being a URN, unless we move  
forward with one of the proposals to create "Special DNS Authorities"

I suppose ICAN could make a special class of "Persistent Authorities"  
for DNS.

Stuart Williams wanted me to have a stab at the persistence question.
Hopefully this will advance the conversation.

Best Regards
John Bradley
OASIS IDTRUST-SC
http://xri.net/=jbradley
五里霧中



>
> On 25-Jul-08, at 9:41 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
>
>
>> HST [...] I think there's a fundamental issue we need to be clear  
>> on: is it OK for a group of domain name owners to agree a naming  
>> convention amongst themselves? In the ARK case, this trespasses on  
>> the WebArch advice wrt aliasing, and in general might also seem to  
>> fall foul of the whole business of URI opacity (that was Mark  
>> Baker's particular concern).
>
> "URI Opacity" is a term that I've found means different things to
> different folks, so I try to avoid it now.  But I do believe that
> private naming conventions do cause harm to the Web because they are
> essentially a proprietary form of link and link metadata.  If two URIs
> at different domains identify the same resource, dereferencing one of
> them should provide a declaration (Link header, RDFa, whatever) that
> the resource is the same (owl:sameAs or equivalent) as the other.
>
>> From a REST perspective, the architectural constraint that's being
> disregarded by this practice is "hypermedia as the engine of
> application state", and IMO, it's the constraint most responsible for
> imparting Web-nature.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>