[OpenID] AddId! - A useful idea of mine?!
bob at wyman.us
Thu Feb 1 22:06:27 UTC 2007
On 2/1/07, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma at gmail.com> wrote:>On 2/1/07, Dick
Hardt <dick at sxip.com> wrote:
>> All of these formats are limiting Chris.
>Not really... If you want more you expand them. It's not
> hard to extend uF stuff with either namespacing, extra
> classes, XOXO, or some other method.
I think that the limitation that Dick was referring to is not a limitation
in the ability to extend what you can encode using any of the formats you
mention, rather, the limitation is related to the ease with which data in
these formats is exchanged with systems that use data written in other
formats. The formats that you mention are all of a class that might be
called "self-centered." They are only concerned with what they can or cannot
express. The problem addressed by Attribute Exchange is, however, the
problem of *exchange*. Thus, you need formats which take into account the
requirements of exchange, not just those concerning expressiveness. What
happens in the "less-limited" formats that Dick is talking about is that
individual attributes are identified using a IRI or URI rather than by some
schema specific name. The use of more granular definitions as well as a
globally useful naming system makes it vastly easier to do, and reason about
doing, exchange between applications.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the general