Markus, 1) I had thought now that XRD was stable that this was an opportunity for Higgins to update its resolution code to use XRD instead of XRDS.
2) I had also thought that we could drop support for xri 2.0 syntax and just (for simplicity) support xri 3.0. However after talking to Drummond just now he reminded me that xri.net has not yet been updated to support xri 3.0 syntax and thus it would be better to wait on this change. In fact if I understood Drummond he suggested it would be better to wait on 1) AND 2) above and make all the changes at once in a few months when the XRI TC had progressed and Neustar had upgraded. --Paul On Aug 8, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Markus Sabadello wrote: > Yes, XRI Resolution has to be updated to support XRD instead of XRDS. > > In the meantime, there's a service that can resolve XRIs and map their XRDS > to an XRD. > Example: http://xri2xrd.net/=markus > > A standard LRDD resolver starting with > http://xri.net/=markus > should correctly discover the XRD for =markus. > > For Higgins, this means that the UDI resolver (higgins.idas.udi) could > probably be simplified to use LRDD for both XRIs and URIs, instead of using > XRI Resolution for the format and Yadis for the latter. > > Markus > > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Paul Trevithick <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: > >> >> 1) UDIs not URNs >> >> EntityIDs are supposed to be resource UDIs not URNs. So after we correct >> that error in our XDI then the entityIDs will look like this: >> >> =mydex....@alice/$context$xdi+home+and+family//=alice >> >> Where >> =mydex is the name of the PDS operator >> @alice is the community name assigned to alice by Mydex >> This is not correct. @alice is a global organization i-name. This should be >> *alice. > > Oops, of course! I knew that :-) > >> $context indicates that we're looking for a "context" service endpoint in >> the LDDR/XRD >> $xdi indicates that this entityID can be accessed over XDI >> +home+and+family is the id of the context >> It's been so long since I've worked with UDIs and UDI resolution that I >> can't answer this. Markus will have to. However service endpoint selection >> is no longer part of XRD (as opposed to XRDS), so I think there's going to >> be an issue here one way or another. > > The intent of the UDI term was not to invent anything new. The intent was to > have a word that meant "either XRI resolution or Linked Data URI or <some > other std discoverable reference>" > > So WRT XRI-UDIs our intent was to track whatever XRI resolution is defined to > be per the latest thoughts of the XRI TC. It sounds like you're saying that > the XRI resolution spex haven't been revised to work with XRD (as opposed to > XRDS). Is that right? > > > > _______________________________________________ > higgins-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev > > > > > <ATT00001..c>
_______________________________________________ higgins-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev
