RE: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to "self-reference"

["Loren West" <loren.west@epokinc.com>]

Drummond,

The cross-reference example (and value proposition) you gave
is very clear.

I also understand - from a theoretical point of view - that
self references are for referencing the identifier, not the
resource.

Can you help me to understand when I'd want to use a self-
reference?  And from a machine point of view - can the parser
know that it has a cross-reference vs. a self-reference, and
would a parser or resolver do something different with one or 
the other?

Apologies in advance if I'm slower than others at getting
my head around self-references.  I understand the "what",
it's the "why" that I'm struggling with.

Thank you,

=Loren  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:19 PM
> To: Loren West; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to 
> "self-reference"
> 
> 
> Ah, Loren, good test. Since cross-references and 
> self-references are two
> of the six key features of XRIs (along with unlimited delegation,
> persistence, global context symbols, and internationalization), here's
> how I'd describe and compare them.
> 
> A cross-reference is an identifier used in the context of another
> identifier. The primary usage of cross references is to allow multiple
> authorities (contexts) to share the same identifier for the 
> same logical
> resources. For example, xri:=John/(+phone.number)/(+work) and
> xri:=Mary/(+phone.number)/(+work) allow both John and Mary to refer to
> the same logical resource (their respective work phone numbers) using
> the same identifiers.
> 
> A self-reference is an identifier used to refer to itself. The primary
> usage of self-references is to allow humans and computers to 
> refer to an
> identifier itself rather than the resource the identifier 
> would normally
> identify. For example, xri:foo refers to the resource with 
> the relative
> reassignable identifier "foo", while the xri:(.foo) refers to the
> identifier "foo" itself and NOT the identified resource.
> 
> You could say that every cross-reference is also a 
> self-reference to the
> XRI contained in the cross-reference, and you'd be right (both
> syntactically and logically), but I'm not sure what 
> additional cognitive
> value that would buy ;-)
> 
> =Drummond 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loren West [mailto:loren.west@epokinc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:30 PM
> To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to
> "self-reference"
> 
> Drummond,
> 
> Can you describe the differences between "self-reference" and
> "cross-reference"?  XRI syntax has these two things, the
> syntactical and logical differences between them aren't
> clear (at least to me).
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> =Loren
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:00 PM
> > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to 
> "self-reference"
> >
> >
> > As we continue to prepare the final working draft (now 
> slated to be 09
> > after Gabe's posting of 08 today), I'd like to put to rest 
> a lingering
> > terminology issue: the term "non-resolvable". We have found numerous
> > times now that this term creates confusion because, as Gabe 
> says, what
> > we really mean when we use it to describe an XRI is
> > "not-to-be-resolved".
> >
> > In other words, "non-resolvable" DOESN'T mean the XRI CAN'T
> > be resolved,
> > it simply means in this context that the purpose of the XRI 
> is only to
> > determine equivalence and thus it should not be dereferenced.
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> >       xri:@foo
> >       xri:(@foo)
> >
> > The former is intended to be resolved to the resource identified by
> > "@foo". The latter is a way of expressing that resolution is NOT
> > intended, and that the XRI merely expresses "the identifier with the
> > value '@foo'".
> >
> > We have never disagreed that this is useful, we just haven't known
> > exactly what to call it. As we have written many times (and as David
> > Booth illustrated in his white paper about the different 
> uses of URIs
> > that we cited in the XRI Requirements doc), what we intend 
> by the term
> > "non-resolution" is same thing accomplished in English language by
> > putting a word in quotes, e.g., "the word "user-friendly" has become
> > commonplace in computer literature".
> >
> > It finally hit me what this really is: a self-reference.
> > Since the whole
> > purpose of an identifier is to serve as a reference to a 
> resource, we
> > need special syntax - in both human and computer languages - for the
> > special case when we DON'T mean "the thing being identified", but
> > instead mean "the identifier itself", i.e., a self-reference.
> >
> > I've already begun using this term in several documents
> > describing this
> > feature of XRIs and it works like a charm - simply substitute
> > "self-reference" for "non-resolvability" and "self-referential" for
> > "non-resolvable". It works especially well because cross-reference
> > syntax is already a key feature of XRIs, and now we can list
> > self-reference syntax alongside it.
> >
> > So the formal proposal is to make the terminology substitution above
> > beginning with the 09 draft. Any objections, please post ASAP
> > - silence
> > will be deemed consensus.
> >
> > =Drummond
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave
> _workgroup.php.
> 
>