Talk:Extensible Resource Identifier

“URIs … are the most successful identifiers in history.”

The identifiers “Rome” and “Athens,” and the whole “given name + family name” system of (human) identifiers have been pretty successful historically too. Maybe this article should say “URIs … are the most successful identifiers in network computing history” or something like that. Actually I think the statement is pretty dubious — who’s to say that URIs are more successful than the domain name system, or IPv4 addresses? —Fleminra 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

watch neutrality

I didn't see anything too blatant, but the overall tone seems to be more pro-XRI than neutral. Ojcit 00:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has launched a copyright investigation involving this section. The text under investigation is currently hidden from public view, but is accessible in the page history. Please do not remove this notice or restore blanked content until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk, or volunteer response agent.

The purported copyright violation copies text from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri/faq.php#_Toc121168721 (Copyvios report); as such, this page has been listed on the copyright problems page.

Unless the copyright status of the text of this page or section is clarified and determined to be compatible with Wikipedia's content license, the problematic text and revisions or the entire page may be deleted one week after the time of its listing.

What can I do to resolve the issue?

If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Wikipedia.
1. You must permit the use of your material under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
2. Explain your intent to license the content on this article's discussion page.
3. To confirm your permission, you can either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under CC BY-SA and the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
4. Note that articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; consider whether, copyright issues aside, your text is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
You can demonstrate that this text is in the public domain or is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia. Explain this on this article's discussion page, with reference to evidence. Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Compatibly licensed may assist in determining the status.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this page without copyright-infringing material. Your rewrite should be placed on this page, where it will be available for an administrator or clerk to review it at the end of the listing period. Follow this link to create the temporary subpage. Please mention the rewrite upon completion on this article's discussion page.
- Simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be cleanly removed or the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.)
- For license compliance, any content used from the original article must be properly attributed; if you use content from the original, please leave a note at the top of your rewrite saying as much. You may duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself.
- It is always a good idea, if rewriting, to identify the point where the copyrighted content was imported to Wikipedia and to check to make sure that the contributor did not add content imported from other sources. When closing investigations, clerks and administrators may find other copyright problems than the one identified. If this material is in the proposed rewrite and cannot be easily removed, the rewrite may not be usable.

Steps to list an article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems:

Add the following to the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 May 23: * {{subst:article-cv|Talk:Extensible Resource Identifier}} from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri/faq.php#_Toc121168721. ~~~~
Add the following template to the talk page of the contributor of the material: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=Talk:Extensible Resource Identifier|url=http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri/faq.php#_Toc121168721}} ~~~~
Place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the end of the portion you want to blank. If nominating the entire page, please place this template at the top of the page, set the "fullpage" parameter to "yes", and place {{copyvio/bottom}} at the very end of the article.

[[Category:Wikipedia pages tagged for copyright problems|]] Ojcit 01:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copied text from OASIS

The following text appears on the oasis xri website.^[1] Is there some public domain disclaimer that I don't know about?

== Why not just use HTTP URLs? ==
This is one of the most frequently asked questions about XRIs (after all, HTTP URLs are the most successful identifiers of all time.)
First, the current working draft of the XRI Resolution specification includes a defined HTTP URL format in which any XRI can be expressed. So in essence, XRIs can be treated entirely as HTTP URIs for the purpose of backwards compatibility with HTTP infrastructure.
From a broader perspective, however, the reason HTTP URI syntax itself was not used is that it does not fulfill several of the most important requirements for abstract, cross-context identifiers. Specifically:

HTTP URIs are bound to a specific transport protocol. A fully abstract identifier scheme needs to be independent of any specific transport or access protocol.

HTTP URIs do not support sharing structured, “tagged” identifiers across contexts. A fully abstract identifier scheme will enable “identifier markup” just like XML enables data markup.

HTTP URIs do not define a clear way to get at metadata (as opposed to data) about a resource. A fully abstract identifier scheme can cleanly distinguish access to resource metadata vs. a resource itself.

HTTP URIs offer only a very limited authority delegation model. Abstract identifiers need to be able to express logical authorities and authority delegation relationships.

HTTP URIs do not offer a trusted resolution mechanism. A fully abstract identifier scheme can define a trusted resolution protocol independent of DNS.

HTTP URIs do not offer a standard syntax for persistence. A fully abstract identifier scheme can clearly distinguish between persistent and reassignable identifiers.

^ http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri/faq.php#_Toc121168721