RE: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC

My understanding of closing the XRI TC and folding the work into the XDI TC was that the XRI 3.0 spec would be released by the XDI TC.  Not trying to change my vote - lack of activity
 pretty much required XRI TC to close one way or another.   However, it sounds like what is currently being discussed in the XDI TC now is the completely rework of XRIs to match the new XDI syntax.  In other words it sounds like the plan is that the identifier
 syntax for XDI will not be a simple layer based on straight XRI 3.0 syntax (as described by the working draft) with the XDI layer sitting on top of that, but just an XDI layer.  I think that is not a good thing and that the XRI 3.0 Working Draft should be
 submitted for ratification.  

So I have the following questions:

(1) What is the disposition of the XRI 3.0 Working Draft? 

(2) Does the XRI 3.0 go away to get replaced by XDI Resource Identifiers 1.0? 

(3) Does it get published as a CD submitted for ratification with section 3.1.1 as is?

(4) Will the final XRI syntax spec that authors can base things on without the XDI additions be 2.0?

(5) Have we addressed in XRI 3.0 the issues raised by the W3C?

(6) If the answer to (5) is yes, do we have assurances the W3C will not lobby to block its ratification?

Kind regards,

 

Bill Barnhill

Booz Allen Hamilton - Belcamp,MD



Cell: 1-443-924-0824 

From: Barnhill, William [USA]

Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:40 PM

To: Joseph Boyle; Will Norris

Cc: Chasen, Les; Markus Sabadello; Drummond Reed; XRI TC; Davis, Peter; Chet Ensign

Subject: RE: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC

+1

Kind regards,

 

Bill Barnhill

Booz Allen Hamilton - Belcamp,MD



Cell: 1-443-924-0824 

From:  [] on behalf of Joseph Boyle []

Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:16 PM

To: Will Norris

Cc: Chasen, Les; Markus Sabadello; Drummond Reed; XRI TC; Davis, Peter; Chet Ensign

Subject: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC

+1

On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Will Norris <> wrote:

+1

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Chasen, Les 
<> wrote:

+1

On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:05 AM, "Markus Sabadello" <> wrote:

I think this makes sense, let's proceed as proposed.

Markus

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Drummond Reed 
<> wrote:

XRI TC Members,

After approximately two years of inactivity, during which time virtually all the work on XRI has migrated to the OASIS XDI Technical Committee, our TC Administrator Chet Ensign contacted Peter and I to ask if it is time to formally close the XRI TC.

I had a call with Chet last Thursday to discuss it. Chet said that if the only continuing work on what were the XRI specifications is now going on at the XDI TC, and if there is no other work that the XRI TC plans to continue (such as the work on XRD),
 then he recommends that the TC hold an electronic ballot to close the TC and contribute the work to the XDI TC.

I agreed with him, and volunteered to start the process. On last Friday's XDI TC telecon, I held a discussion with the XDI TC members, and they unanimously agreed they would accept the XRI work if it was contributed to the XDI TC.

So the next step is to see if there is rough consensus among the XRI TC members to close the TC and contribute the work to the XDI TC.

Please reply to this email with your thoughts -- in particular if you do NOT support closing the TC and contributing the work to the XDI TC. (Silence will be taken as assent.)

If there is rough consensus, Chet will then instruct us with the ballot language we will need for a formal vote.

Thanks,

=Drummond