I think i can agree with this. esentially profile out [:version], such
that resolvers MAY ignore such things (of course, interpreting XRI
equivalence w/out [:version] may cause headaches).
--- peterd
Lindelsee, Mike wrote:
>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
