Fwd: W3C TAG Questions on Draft #2 of XRI Resolution V 2.0

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: 
> From: 
> Date: February 1, 2008 2:04:22 PM EST
> To: 
> Subject: W3C TAG Questions on Draft #2 of XRI Resolution V 2.0
>
>
> I am writing on behalf of the World Wide Web Consortium Technical
> Architecture Group (TAG).  The purpose of this note is to pose to  
> you some
> questions that arose during our discussion of "Committee draft 2 of
> Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution Version 2.0" [1].    
> It is
> possible that the TAG would later wish to offer some comments and
> suggestions regarding XRI and its relationship to the architecture  
> of the
> Web, but first we feel we need to better understand the intended  
> uses of
> XRI.  We apologise for engaging in reviewing your work so late, and we
> hope and trust that you will remain open to further questions and  
> comment
> from us as our review progresses.
>
> We would very much appreciate it if you could clarify whether we  
> have read
> the XRI Resolution specification correctly in inferring that:
>
> 1) All access to resources identified by XRIs
>    require (at least) two round trips, the
>    first to retrieve metadata (XRDS, XRD or
>    uri list) and the second to retrieve
>    (a representation of) the resource itself?
>
> 2) HTTP content negotiation can be used in
>    requests for XRIs to force either metadata
>    return or redirection to actual resource
>    representations?
>
> 3) Relative XRIs are of course allowed in the
>    normal way when a full-form XRI has been
>    established as the base URI.  Are they also
>    allowed _without_ any full-form XRI as a
>    base URI?  That is, for example, is "=henry"
>    intended to be recognize as an XRI in the
>    absence of any base URI?  If so, what is
>    being done to ensure that both now and in
>    the future, the syntax of such abbreviated
>    XRIs is coordinated with (I.e. remains
>    disjoint from) the syntax of both absolute
>    and relative URIs that might be used in the
>    same contexts?
>
> Also, could you let us know what steps, if any, you have taken towards
> registration of 'xri' as a URI scheme with the IETF?
>
> Thank you very much for your attention to these questions.
>
> (Note that this email has been bcc:'d to the  public  
> mailing
> list.  bcc: has been used to avoid the problems inherent in email  
> threads
> that are cross posted on multiple lists.  Please note, however, that
> members of the TAG and many members of the community who work with  
> us are
> unlikely to monitor responses sent only to the xri-comments list.
> Accordingly, if you wish correspondence to be seen by the TAG, we  
> encourge
> you to send it to the  list.)
>
> Noah Mendelsohn
> For the World Wide Web Consortium Technical Architecture Group (TAG)
>
> [1]
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/2.0/specs/cd02/xri-resolution-V2.0- 
> cd-02.html
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>