Metadata

As far as the specific serialization format goes I don't have much of a preference. Ideally, a robust asset server would support multiple serialization formats such as XML, LLSD XML, JSON, binary, etc. Where it gets tricky is with the higher level representation. There are two schools of thought: strongly typed data and weakly typed data. Linden Lab's UDP, Google's Protocol Buffers, and Facebook's Thrift are examples of strongly typed protocols. Linden Lab's structured data and most XML schemas are examples of weakly typed data.

Should systems like the asset service focus on strongly or weakly typed data? Are there compelling reasons to choose one direction over the other? --Jhurliman 15:59, 6 October 2008 (PDT)

Is the answer "both"?

I have always felt that the notion of an XML schema allows us to have the best of both worlds; provided we couple it with an understandable versioning scheme. I think strong typing is very desirable from the point of view predictable behavior, but for something like this there is clearly NOT going to be a stable data model over its lifetime regardless of how well the initial model is thought out. I totally agree re: supporting any preferred format for serialization; that should be something agreed between the session partners. --Awebb 06:58, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

Not Just Serving : Asset Catalogs

The focus of the page is upon retrieval of a previously identified asset, i.e. some VW entity already contains a reference to the asset. But how are the assets initially selected? I think a key part of an asset server is going to be the cataloging mechanism that allows users (customers) to locate the assets they want for a particular purpose. This could be a very nice and interesting subsidiary project maybe. This represents an entirely separate metadata domain, being metadata that is not normally shared with the client. In practice, it may ultimately be the principal differentiator between asset server offerings. --Awebb 07:06, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

Authentication

I don't find the authentication proposal convincing (but then nothing is obvious to the uninformed). I really like the idea of capabilities as cookies, that seems entirely more palatable than (ab)using the URI in the fashion suggested elsewhere. Can we elaborate on this at least to the extent that its sufficiency and scalability are more apparent to the reader? --Awebb 07:20, 9 October 2008 (PDT)