I can think of applications where versioning would be a nice feature. I must say though that this would not be a compelling feature for the vast majority of development/architecture work I've done in the past. My recommendation is that versioning not be considered part of the "core" XRI spec, but be added in as a profile/module/conformance level feature.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:25 PM
> To: ''
> Subject: RE: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs
>
>
> I really like the XRI-cross-reference-as-version-tag, but I
> think it conflicts with the human usability aspect (drummond?
> dave mcalpin? I think this is more important a concern to them).
>
> I tend to agree with you that providing a syntax for versions
> doesn't import the complexity inherent in using and
> interpreting those versions.
>
> Does anybody else have opinions on the threshold question of
> whether or not to support version syntax, in general?
>
> -Gabe
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter C Davis [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 7:49 AM
> > To: ''
> > Subject: Re: [xri] TAG discussion of versioning in URIs
> >
> >
> > Wachob, Gabe wrote:
> >
> > >I'm not sure there's been a lot of discussion (relative to a
> > lot of other topics) about versioning, but there seems to be
> > a consensus among those on the TAG that versioning of URIs is
> > a nonstarter. I'm not sure that they've really explained the
> > issue with versioning besides to say "its complicated". I
> > happen to agree that the interpretation of versions can be
> > complicated, but I am not sure if we are going to deal with
> > that complication here or whether it becomes an application
> > issue (for applications using versioned XRIs).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > While i agree with TBL that versioning is complicated, it
> is only so
> > when one attempts to apply "meaning" to the version
> > identifier. I think
> > this IS an application/implimentation issue, best left out of
> > scope for
> > XRI. Simply providing a means to express versions within the
> > structure
> > should be our aim, not detailed normative text attempting to
> > sovle the
> > problem.
> >
> > In fact, now that i think about it, the version string could
> > be an XRI
> > itself, resolving to the specification of the versioning notation
> > employed for this instance of the resource, as well as the version
> > identifier (whatever that is is determined by the version
> > sepcification
> > itself). Continuing the "host version" thread:
> >
> >
> host[@urn:dns:versionspec:serial:2002030415].foo.biz/this/resource
> >
> > (@ was arbitrary on my part.... versioning specifications may
> > have IPR
> > attached to them??).
> > So dereferencing urn:dns:versionspec:serial provides the
> semantics of
> > "things to the right"...
> >
> > --- peterd
> >
>
