Re: [xdi] Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 2011-06-30

[Michael Schwartz <mike@gluu.org>]

Minor correction on the minutes.

We are releasing OpenXDI 0.0 today. For the near term, OX will release monthly.

Authorization (Link Contracts) will be available in a daily build 
hopefully by the end of next week. You can keep an eye on the daily builds 
at:
   http://openxdi.gluu.info/hudson/job/openxdi/changes

We plan to implement authentication via PKI, OAuth and SAML by the end of 
July.


- Mike


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Schwartz
Gluu
Founder, CEO
mike@gluu.org
https://www.gluu.org
+1 646-810-8761



On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Drummond Reed wrote:

> Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XDI TC at:
>
> Date:  Thursday, 30 June 2011 USA
> Time:  1:00PM - 2:00PM Pacific Time (20:00-21:30 UTC)
>
>
> ATTENDING
>
> Giovanni Bartolomeo
> Joseph Boyle
> Mike Schwartz
> Drummond Reed
> Bill Barnhill
>
> GUESTS
> Henrik Sandell
>
>
> THE IDEARPAD LINK FOR TODAY IS:
>     http://xdi.idearpad.org/34
>
>
> 1) UPDATE ON OPENXDI PROGRESS
>
> Mike gave an update that OpenXDI is planning to put out the 0.0 release this
> week. The only item that will be missing that was planned for this release
> will be link contracts. The plan will be to include authentication and
> authorization with link contracts in 0.1 next week.
>
>
> 2) PREPARATIONS FOR XDI 1.0 SPEC RELEASE
>
> We discussed two items that will be important to deliver along with the XDI
> 1.0 specs. The first is the XRI 3.0 specifications. Drummond explained that
> the XRI TC's stance has been that the XRI 3.0 Working Draft is stable and is
> ready to move forward, they are only waiting for the XDI 1.0 specs to be
> ready, as many of the best XRI examples will be from XDI 1.0.
>
> The second is a comparison between XDI and RDF. Giovanni pointed out that
> there are still at least two open issues:
>
>   - The use of $is for both equivalence and inverse statements -- will this
>   be compatible with RDF?
>
>
>   - The current proposal for $is synonym statements between separate nodes
>   - is this approach fully compatible with RDF?
>
>
> Giovanni feels that it is important for these issues to be considered prior
> to finalizing our 1.0 specs.
>
> We discussed the advantages of having a clearly mapped relationship between
> XDI and RDF. Mike asked how important compability is if XDI is solving the
> problems we are currently addressing (such as portable authorization with
> link contracts). Giovanni pointed out the size of the RDF Linked Data
> project (with over 20 billion RDF triples).
>
> Bill brought the perspective that there are many use cases for how XDI can
> and may be used beyond the personal data sharing use cases in which some TC
> members have a strong interest. For example Bill feels there is a
> significant market in using XDI for data analysis where OWL is not well
> suited.
>
> Giovanni wants to make sure the XDI TC doesn't reproduce the problem that
> the XRI TC had, which was to push a specification to an OASIS Standard vote
> that did not have buy-in from the W3C, and thus resulted in being the first
> OASIS Standard in history to fail at an OASIS Standard vote. Giovanni noted
> that this lesson proved valuable in the end, and Drummond strongly agreed -
> the XRI 3.0 spec is much the better for it.
>
> Drummond suggested that to finally solve these longstanding questions about
> RDF compatability will take a renewed deep-dive focus on these issues and
> proposals for innovative solutions that provide RDF compability without
> constraining the unique capabilities of the XDI graph model.
>
>
> 3) JIRA ISSUE TRACKING
>
> Bill pointed out that we haven't been using Jira to track issues yet even
> though we are now set up for it.
>
> # BILL will contact Robin Cover to set up a tutorial telecon so we can get
> everyone in the TC up to speed on using Jira to do issues management.
>
> # DRUMMOND will put Jira issues review at the start of each telecon agenda.
>
>
> 4) MOVING FROM METAGRAPH SYMBOLS TO METAGRAPH WORDS
>
> See Drummond's email to the list and subsequent discussion:
>
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201106/msg00029.html
>
> Drummond summarized last week's discussion, and said that is really becomes
> an aesthetic decision by the TC, since $ ==>$is, * ==> $has, and ! ==> $a
> are functionality identical.
>
> Bill said that he is in favor of moving back to metagraph words for these
> symbols, but feels we should have separate $words for equivalence and
> inversion.
>
> Giovanni pointed out that even though RDF does not have an algorithmic way
> to express inversion, Linked Data does suggest that nodes that are linked
> also include the inverse link so that you can discover the relationship in
> both directions.
>
> Note that by itself, adopting a separate $word for inversion is not a
> solution to the RDF incompability issue.
>
> # ALL - Send your stack-ranked choice for a new $word for asserting
> inversion as an email to the list before next week's call.
>
>
> 5) LINK CONTRACT PROCESSING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
>
> Drummond sent an email to the list about this topic:
>
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201106/msg00041.html
>
> He explained that it is a high-priority discussion to support the
> implementation of link  contracts at the OpenXDI Project. See also the last
> link contract  example patterns in:
>
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/42654/xdi-graph-patterns-2011-06-23.pdf
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/42656/xdi-statements-for-xdi-graph-patterns-2011-06-23.pdf
>
> Drummond ran through the login in the email that it can save enormous
> processing load on XDI servers everywhere if the XDI protocol if:
>
>   - Every request is limited to data covered by a single link contract
>
>
>   - The request MUST include a reference to the governing link contract.
>
>
> There was consensus that these requirements made sense. Thus the next step
> is to arrive at consensus on the format of this reference in an XDI message.
>
> # BILL will add an issue in Jira to cover this as an open issue.
>
>
> 6) NEXT CALL
>
> The next call is next week at the regular time.
>
>
> ------------
> ONGOING ISSUES LIST
>
> Each of these is a candidate for the agenda for future calls.
>
> * DO WE NEED SEPARATE METAGRAPH WORDS FOR EQUIVALENCE AND INVERSION? (added
> 2011-06-30 - Giovanni)
>
> This is an open issue because does not have a direct corallary in RDF.
>
> * SYNONYM HANDLING (added 2011-06-30 - Giovanni)
>
> This remains an open issue because it raises challenges with compatibility
> with RDF.
>
> * TRANSACTIONAL INTEGRITY FOR XDI (added 2011-03-24)
>
> Since  versioning, as one example, involves multiple transactions that must
> be  commited as a group, we will need to address transactional integrity.
> Specifically, we need to define how this will be handled at the protocol
> level, vs. the implementation level.
>
> * PROPOSED CONSTRUCTS/OPERATORS FOR XDI
>
> Discuss the following wiki page originally posted by Giovanni:
>
>  http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiNewFoundation
>
> * DICTIONARY STRUCTURE
>
> Mike would like an example of the PDX dictionary as soon as we can do it.
>
> *   EQUIVALENCE SEMANTICS
>
> Close on whether we need an additional $ word that is the equivalent
> of Higgins Personal Data Model (PDM)  semantics   of h:correlation,
> which is not as strong as $is.
>
>      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201006/msg00036.html
>
> * COOL URIS
>
> Continue previous discussion about the use of standard RDF URIs in XDI:
>
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201006/msg00023.html
>