xdi message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xdi] XDI Grapher
- From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>
- To: Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 13:52:15 -0800
Markus,
Amazing!!! As soon as I saw your mail I realized what you had been up to, but I had no idea how easy or fun it would be to play with XDI Grapher. This is going to be a fantastic XDI teaching tool!
RE the B4 example (which applies to the XRI [+a+b+c]), I think the problem is in the way you are implementing the associative semantics. You in fact are following exactly the path I did in originally developing the box graphing notation. I thought the box graph for +a+b+c would look just like what XDI grapher currently shows for +a+b+c. However, because of the associative semantics of $has statements, all of the XDI RDF statements listed for the B4 example should produce the same box graph.
For example, both of the following XDI addresses...
(+a/(+b/+c))
((+a/+b)/+c)
...reduce to the XRI +a+b+c.
So the rule I followed was that box graph for any set of $has statements (whether expanded or contracted) was the union of the box graphs of all of the $has statements that are equivalent. The result is always a completely filled grid of x^2 boxes where x is the number of XRI subsegments.
Give me a ring on Skype when you have time and let's discuss it.
Thanks again for the fantastic New Year's present!
=Drummond
- References:
- XDI Grapher
- From: Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@gmail.com>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]