RE: [xri] Feedback requested on terms used in Metadata spec

From
Wachob, Gabe <>
Date
2006-01-11T20:54:36+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [xri] Feedback requested on terms used in Metadata spec
I guess I'm partial to the RDF-mindset, but I'm thinking 
that it is an odd fit to make that tight a connection to the S-P-O model since 
its not clear what the actual *subject* is in all cases - to wit, isn't the 
subject the thing outside the metadata cross-reference? Doesn't the Metadata 
XREF explicitly describe/refer to something *outside* the metata XREF? 

 

If we *could* mesh this with RDF concepts, that'd would be 
interesting.

 

Otherwise, I don't have a strong preference between the 
other four items. They all seem pretty isomorphic to me, without having thought 
about this very deeply. 

 

    -Gabe

  

  
  From: Drummond Reed 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 
  2006 11:45 AM
To: 
Subject: [xri] 
  Feedback requested on terms used in Metadata spec

  

  

  
I'm happy to report that Marty and I, after a series 
  of in-depth work sessions (abetted by Dave McAlpin when he's been in town), 
  believe we have wrestled the metadata dragon most of the way to the 
  ground.

  
 

  
The "dragon" is a tighter, more consistent ABNF for 
  all forms of XRI metadata as well as a much cleaner set of rules about what it 
  describes.

  
 

  
Without going into all the gory detail, what XRI 
  Metadata 2.0 Working Draft 08 will recommend is a very simple ABNF for 
  "tagging" an identifier with XRI metadata, which can then be used as a 
  cross-reference inside another XRI. The important clarification we will be 
  making is that this metadata only describes the "subject" identifier (the 
  identifier being described, to borrow term from RDF). For example, in the 
  XRI…

  
 

  
      
  xri://xri.example.com/some/filename*($v*2.3)

  
 

  
…the metadata "$v" only describes the identifier 
  "2.3". It tells you it’s a version number. That's it. From the identifier 
  above, it would be a pretty obvious conclusion that the identifier authority 
  intended the cross-reference "($v*2.3)" to identify a version namespace for 
  the resource identifier by "filename". However in the following 
  XRI…

  
 

  
      
  xri://xri.example.com/some/filename*($v*2.3)*anotherfile

  
 

  
…it may not be quite as clear – does the identifier 
  "($v*2.3)" create a version namespace for "filename" or for 
  "anotherfile"?

  
 

  
The answer is: that's up to the identifier authority 
  and out of scope for the XRI Metadata spec. The scope of the Metadata spec is 
  limited to defining well-known semantics and syntax for a limited set of 
  broadly useful identifier metadata (versions, dates, languages, types, and 
  annotations).

  
 

  
With that explained, here's what we'd like feedback 
  on: the semantics of the actual production names used in the ABNF – which (per 
  our experience with XRI syntax) we'd like to match up with the terms used in 
  the text of the Metadata spec itself. 

  
 

  
Following are four "versions" of the ABNF that are all 
  identical structurally but different in the production names for the first two 
  of the three productions in the proposed syntax. (Marty and I both like the 
  term "subject" for the third component -- the identifier being described -- 
  since this is consistent with RDF and SAML and other similar 
  uses.)

  
 

  
We'd just like to know which of these (if any) are 
  preferred by other members of the TC, since semantics is not something that 
  can be determined by fiat. Please send a reply email to the list with a 
  comment about your preference if you have one (or a different suggestion if 
  you feel something else altogether would work 
  better).

  
 

  
Thanks,

  
 

  
=Drummond and Marty

  
 

  
Example 1 ("tag" 
  wording)

  

  
 xri-metadata        
  = "$" metadata-tag [ “*” metadata-tag-value ] “*” subject 
  

  
 metadata-tag        
  = ( alpha / xref )

  
 metadata-tag-value  = ( xri-subseg / xref 
  )

  
 subject             
  = ( xri-subseg / xref )

  
Example 2 ("attribute" 
  wording)

  

  
  xri-metadata       = 
  "$" attribute [ “*” attribute-value ] “*” subject 
  

  
  
  attribute          = ( alpha / 
  xref )

  
  attribute-value    = ( 
  xri-subseg / xref )

  
  
  subject            = ( 
  xri-subseg / xref )

  
Example 3 ("property" 
  wording)

  

  
  xri-metadata       = 
  "$" property [ “*” property-value ] “*” subject 
  

  
  
  property           = ( alpha 
  / xref )

  
  property-value     = ( 
  xri-subseg / xref )

  
  
  subject            = ( 
  xri-subseg / xref )

  
Example 4 ("RDF" 
  wording)

  

  
  xri-metadata       = 
  "$" predicate [ “*” object ] “*” subject 

  
  
  predicate          = ( alpha / 
  xref )

  
  
  object             
  = ( xri-subseg / xref )

  
  
  subject            = ( 
  xri-subseg / xref )

  
 

  
Examples of the five types of XRI 
  metadata:

  
($l*fr*pays)

  
($t*ces* 
  john%20henry%20doe)

  
($v*2.3)

  
($d*2002-10-10T17:00:00Z)

  
($-*some.comment.here)

  
 

  
How these examples parse to the ABNF 
  above:

  
 

  
    
    

      
        
First 
        production

      
        
Second 
        production

      
        
Subject

    

      
        
$l

      
        
*fr 

      
        
*pays

    

      
        
$t

      
        
*ces

      
        
*john%20henry%20doe

    

      
        
$v

      
        
*number (default – can be 
        omitted)

      
        
*2.3

    

      
        
$d

      
        
*XMLdatetime (default – can be 
        omitted)

      
        
*2002-10-10T17:00:00Z

    

      
        
$-

      
        
*string (default – can be 
        omitted)

      
        
*some.comment.here