RE: [xdi] Re: XDI subjects (was Groups - XDI RDF v8Comments-Barnhill)

[Giovanni Bartolomeo <giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it>]

Some comments from my side:

At 04.24 20/03/2008, Drummond Reed wrote:
> I think the same thing applies to all of the atomic relations ($a,  
> $is, $has, etc.) in the XDI RDF Model document  
> (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiRdfModel), i.e., all of them ONLY  
> express relations between two XDI resources -- a subject resource  
> and an object resource -- and therefore the object of any of these  
> predicates MUST be an XRI and not a literal.
> (I don't know yet about whether their object can be an XDI  
> subcontext -- our equivalent of an RDF blank node -- I need to think  
> on that).

I agree with this. This should be part of the XDI "grammar" rules  
which we talked about during a telco some weeks ago. BTW, my former  
and "mad" idea of having XDI documents as subjects  was exactly coming  
from Drummond last sentence above..  :-)

>
>   Sushi is better than nothing.
>   Nothing is better than sex.
>   Therefore, sushi is better than sex.
>
> The problem with the first syllogism (and it's probably already
> obvious that "nothing" is wrong with the second one) is its
> implication that changing the number of beers in a standard case to be
> 16 would also require changing the number of hours in a day to be 16,
> which probably isn't true.

I would propose to use $equals instead of $is. $equals doesn't define  
synonyms, instead it checks the actual value contained in the literal.
Again, this is XDI "grammar". I think we need to focus on this,  
collecting all issues related to the $keywords and have a section in  
the deliverable about this.

Bests,
Giovanni