FW: [xri] [Glossary] Definition of "Resource" and "Attribute"

["Lindelsee, Mike" <mlindels@visa.com>]

Drummond,

I understand the distinction you are making with the definition of
attribute, but I don't necessarily see the need for it.  Perhaps you could
walk me through a couple of use cases that would make clear the need to
identify information exclusively in the context of a resource.  I would also
like you to then show me how that wouldn't be already covered by allowing
resources to "point" to other resources as "attributes."

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:Drummond.Reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:59 PM
> To: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [xri] [Glossary] Definition of "Resource" and "Attribute"
> (lo ng)
> 
> 
> Mike (and Gabe before him): good stuff. The main reason I 
> sent that opening
> salvo was to help folks realize how large an impact to the 
> whole effort even
> small issues with these core terms have.
> 
> The second reason is that, while it might seem like the term 
> "attribute" may
> not be that important, in my experience with both XNS and 
> Liberty, it ends
> out being very important - almost as important as "resource". 
> Being able to
> unambiguously and persistently reference an attribute in the 
> context of a
> specific resource is critical when it comes to security, 
> digital identity,
> DRM, and many other applications of XRIs.
> 
> That said, I agree with you, Gabe, and Bernard that we should 
> just stick
> with the URI spec definition of resource as "anything that 
> has identity" and
> not try to define it further. It's not worth splitting hairs 
> over whether
> simple attributes actually have identity outside of the 
> resource that they
> describe.
> 
> I think your definition of attribute as " data, metadata or 
> other resources
> associated with a resource" is pretty close to the mark but the words
> "associated with a resource" don't quite fully distinguish 
> the two things I
> think are most important about attributes vs. resources:
> 
> 1) Attributes are always relative, i.e., they only exist in 
> the context of a
> specific resource, and
> 2) A special kind of attribute - an identifier - exists for 
> the special
> purpose of forming an association with ANOTHER resource (that's our
> definition of identifier). 
> 
> To capture these two nuances, here's a modification to your proposed
> definition of "attribute":
> 
> 	Data, metadata or other resources that describe a 
> specific resource.
> Attributes are always relative to the resource they describe. 
> Identifiers
> are an attribute of one resource whose purpose is to form an 
> association
> with another resource.
> 
> How's that work?
> 
> =Drummond 
> 
>