[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use case
Les, I strongly disagree that GCS
delimiters is “a solution looking for a requirement”. Not even in
the early days of “concatenated syntax” was that true. However it
is true that it wasn’t until the work of the XDI TC on the XDI RDF model
that we were able to articulate the requirement for ordered sets of XRIs in
detail. The XDI TC contributed the http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriThree/GcsDelimiter
page to the XRI TC to document this requirement so it would be clear. I
understand you are telling us it doesn’t explain it clearly enough to
you. Let’s move to voice. I’ll try
to call you now. It may be too late today to reach you given that tomorrow is
Thanksgiving, but if we don’t talk today, let’s try to hook up
Friday or Monday. Thanks, =Drummond From: Chasen, Les
[mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz] See below for some
specific responses. Overall I am still just not getting the need for this
capability. This proposal has been out there, under various names, for
years. OMG, I cannot believe it has been years L.
The problem, IMHO,
is that a solution was discovered before a requirement or need came to
light. Almost by mistake this solution, originally called concatenated
syntax, was discovered while explaining XRIs to others. This syntax
seemed easier to convey the message. Once we had this solution a
requirement was sought out. That is a bit backwards. Usually one
comes up with a requirement before figuring out a solution. As a result
we have been trying to fit a requirement into the solution and none of them
seem to have been articulated very well. I just do not
understand why we need to introduce global subsegements. From: John Bradley
[mailto:jbradley@mac.com] We need to remember that @cordance is not asked. If @cordance has an authority service that service is asked for a XRD.
[Chasen, Les] Right, the authority resolution service for @cordance
is providing the responses. The Authority service for @cordance can produce a XRD in any way it
sees fit. It may take it from a file or look it up in XDI or some other
database. [Chasen, Les] Correct I think the Parenthesis indicate that the thing it is being
handed to resolve is not a normal subsegment it must use some special
processing to produce a XRD for the identifier contained in the
cross reference. [Chasen, Les] Interesting … Now the parenthetical
cross reference is being referred to as not normal. I am not sure I agree
but if it is special processing seems to make sense. However, special
processing has not been proposed. Passing *(=Drummond) to a authority server is telling the authority
server to produce a XRD based on the input value of the global =drummond.
It could just go get =Drummond's XRD and return that though that would
brake CID verification. [Chasen, Les] it could but again special processing has not
been proposed. It would seem that if there really is a significant difference
between GCS subsegments and cross references that there should be. I am
trying to understand this. I see the (=drummond ) , (+14165551212) or (http://yahoo.com)
etc as inputs to some lookup extension process on the authority server, and =drummond as a subsegment a request to retrieve that
subsegment from @cordance's authority server. [Chasen, Les] At this point I just do not see the
justification for this. Cross references have always been about sending an opaque
string to a authority server to get back a XRD. [Chasen, Les] an opaque string that represents another
authority. I don't thingk @cordance+drummond is a cross reference it is
a two subsegment XRI [Chasen, Les] I do not agree. =jbradley On 26-Nov-08, at 10:02 AM, Chasen, Les wrote: I need to stick with simple examples and in this case there
is only one authority, @cordance, in question. under the current proposal
@cordance is asked for both =drummond and *(=drummond) and it returns its own
xrd if one exists within @cordance. We have never discussed whether @cordance
may go to the = authorty server for drummond when it is contained within
*(=drummond). I think that maybe interesting behavior. From: John
Bradley Les, I started off with that position. I now think they are
separate queries to the next authority server. I think that the parenthesized statement may contain multiple
subsegments is the important thing. Once we have a way to encapsulate multiple subsegments to be handed to
an authority server it is hard to stop someone from only putting in a
single subsegment. in the cross ref. I think the simple principle is that things
in parenthesis are opaque to the resolver and handed to the next
authority server and things not in parenthesis are resolved left to
right one subsegment at a time. I also don't think that in ether case @cordance is being asked anything
about the global =drummond if one exists. In the first case the authority server for @cordance is being asked for
a XRD for the subsegment =drummond the = is treated as part of the subsegment
itself In the second case the authority server for @cordance is being
asked for a XRD for the subsegment *(=drummond) I think the latter could be taken that the authority server may look
someplace else to get the XRD for the cross reference. I think in the former case =drummond is a subsegment in its
authority server. The question is if it is just a regular subsegment is using = as a
separator going to confuse people. =drummond is just a regular subsegment with
some inference by Cordance that its =drummond has something to do
with the global =drummond though XRI makes no such claim other things using XRI
like XDI may. John B. On 26-Nov-08, at 9:23 AM, Chasen, Les wrote: Let's not complicate this with +phone. My question is does
@cordance return a different xrd for =drummond and *(=drummond)? This proposal
says yes. I disagree with this behavior. I think @cordance is being asked for
its representation of =drummond in both cases. From: John
Bradley From a XRI resolution perspective I see a difference in what
@cordance's authority server is asked for. @cordance=drummond
, @cordance is asked for the XRD for =drummond @cordance=drummond+phone
, @cordance is asked for the XRD for =drummond
, @cordance=drummond is asked for the XRD for +phone @cordance*(=drummond)
, @cordance is asked for the XRD for *(=drummond) @cordance*(=drummond+phone) , @cordance is
asked for the XRD for *(=drummond+phone) Parenthesis in the first segment tell the resolver to treat the
contents as an opaque string and pass it to the next authority server. The resolver Parenthesis in the path are
not significant to the resolver they would
be matched during service selection as they are now. One thing we did start talking about at the F2F is what the syntax to
indicate special processing on a cross reference. An example: $XRD*(https://boing.com)*marty Is $XRD a node that has as its authority service one that performs XRD
resolution on the next subsegment. So is a $ word in XRI resolution a node that points to
a specialized authority service? Certainly a resolver has the option
of shortcutting resolution through querying the $XRD
authority server if it understands the $XRD word. Under Drummond's proposal we do have to have a theory about what + and
$ in the first subsegment resolve to. John B. On 26-Nov-08, at 6:51 AM, Chasen, Les wrote: Hi Giovanni - From: Giovanni
Bartolomeo Hello Les, Hi Giovanni. I had a chance to read this. While I like what
you guys |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]