Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [newsml-g2] Re: GUID comparison

Expand Messages
  • Michael Steidl (IPTC)
    Yes and no: - as each URI/IRI type has its intrinsic comparison rule the receiver should be able to implement them following the individual IRI type
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 5, 2011
      Yes and no:
      - as each URI/IRI type has its intrinsic comparison rule the receiver should
      be able to implement them following the individual IRI type specifications
      - but it would be nice and saving expenses if a provider tells its customers
      which IRI type will be used so that they don't have to implement all
      possible IRI type rules.

      Cheers,
      Michael


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-
      > g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
      > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 2:25 PM
      > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [newsml-g2] Re: GUID comparison
      >
      > Thanks Michael. As comparison is scheme-dependent, I infer that I must
      tell
      > in advance to potential receivers which scheme(s) I use, so they can
      ensure
      > their processors perform correct comparisons.
      > Best,
      > Philippe
      >
      > --- In newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Steidl \(IPTC\)"
      > <mdirector@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Philippe
      > >
      > > The G2 specifications only requires that the @guid value is "The
      > > persistent, universally unique identifier for the Item" and "The guid
      > > is required to be in the form of an IRI. Any IRI capable of acting as
      > > a globally unique identifier is accepted."
      > >
      > > This requirement outsources the rules for comparing IRIs to the
      > > specifications for this type of IRI, e.g.:
      > > - the IPTC NewsML URN in RFC 3085: chapter "Rules for Lexical
      > Equivalence"
      > > [1]
      > > - the TAG URIs in RFC 4151: see chapter 2.4 [2]
      > >
      > > Michael
      > >
      > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3085.txt
      > > [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4151.txt
      > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-
      > g2@yahoogroups.com]
      > > > On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
      > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 10:33 AM
      > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: [newsml-g2] GUID comparison
      > > >
      > > > Hi,
      > > > I don't see information in the spec about comparing G2 items' guids
      > > > for equality (e.g., is it character by character comparison? Is it
      > > > case
      > > sensitive? Is
      > > > there some normalization to apply? Is it scheme-dependent? etc.). Or
      > > > maybe it is implicit that IRI comparison must be used? (note,
      > > > however that the
      > > IRI
      > > > spec provides multiple options along a "comparison ladder", so the
      > > > NewsML-
      > > > G2 standard might want to further refine things here to strengthen
      > > > interoperability).
      > > > I'd grateful to get some information on this.
      > > > Thanks,
      > > > Philippe
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
      > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
      > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
      > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
      > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
      > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
      > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.