OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character


Dave, I was careful to qualify my entire point with the statement, "within
the XRI authority portion of an XRI". I never meant anything more than that,
which is why I made that qualification.

It is true that the proposed XRI addressing rules for the proposed XDI
metaschema carry this distinction further down into XDI documents, which is
all the province of a different TC. However that proposal only applies
within the context of XDI, and only if the XDI TC decides on that approach.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 5:49 PM
To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character

2396bis says slash ("/"), question mark ("?"), and number sign ("#") are
all hierarchy characters. These characters serve two purposes - first,
to make identifiers easier to read by using a common syntax and second,
to provide a uniform representation of relative references (and
consequently common algorithms for processing them).

In @foo/bar/baz, I think all we can say about /bar/baz is a) it's
hierarchical and b) it's in a namespace controlled by the authority
represented by @foo. If we're using standard resolution, we can also say
that if @foo/bar/baz is resolvable, the mechanism(s) for accessing the
resource represented by /bar/baz is defined in an XRID associated with
foo.

In @foo*bar/baz, all we can say for sure about @foo*bar is a) it's
hierarchical using the second level delimiter and b) it's the namespace
authority for /baz. If we're using standard resolution, we can
additionally say that @ is the namespace authority for foo, foo is the
namespace authority for bar, and the mechanism(s) for accessing the
resource represented by /baz is defined in an XRID associated with bar
(assuming the XRI is resolvable).

None of this is all that different than Drummond's statement below, but
it doesn't support his conclusion. First, only the first slash has
defined semantics. After that we have no idea whether or not slash
represents "delegation" - that's completely determined by the local
access protocol and/or internal implementations. Second, * or ! or
whatever is only a second level hierarchical delimiter in the generic
syntax. Semantics are defined only if we're using standard resolution,
and then only in the authority component. Only in that special case,
i.e. in the authority component when standard resolution is employed,
does * or ! imply delegation.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 5:17 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> 
> I agree with Peter's characterization of the meaning of the
distinction,
> and
> I believe that, within the XRI authority portion of an XRI, this
> distinction
> applies to all contexts. For example, in pure XRI technical terms, the
> distinction between "@foo/bar/baz" and "@foo*bar/baz" (to use star as
an
> example of the delegation character) is that:
> 
> * In "@foo/bar/baz", both "/bar" and "/bar/baz" are identifiers for
> resources assigned by the identifier authority "@foo".
> 
> * In "@foo*bar/baz", both "@foo" and "@foo*bar" are identifier
> authorities,
> and the latter is the identifier authority responsible for identifying
the
> resource "/baz".
> 
> So essentially slash is the "hierarchy character" (taking our queue
from
> 2396bis BNF) that does NOT delegate authority, as opposed to star (or
> whatever delegation character we decide on) which explicitly delegates
to
> another identifier authority.
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter C Davis [mailto:peter.davis@neustar.biz]
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:25 AM
> To: Loren West
> Cc: 'Fen Labalme'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> 
> I think of the distinction (highly simplified) as:
> 
> a slash denotes a resource in the context of an authority (@idc/fen)
> while the "delegation char" is a resource authority.
> 
> subtle but important distinction.
> 
> --- peterd
> 
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 01:46, Loren West wrote:
> > You're right, the dot means delegation in the authority section.
> > I was referring to your statement about the slash having specific
> > meaning (you said it's the stuff @idcommons knows about fen).
> >
> > =Loren
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org]
> > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 6:25 PM
> > To: Loren West
> > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> >
> >
> > I don't believe I have.  In the authority section (before the first
> > forward slash) dot means delegation.  Am I not correct?
> >
> > Loren West wrote:
> > > I understand that you have attached additional semantics to
> > > the identifiers beyond the scope of the XRI TC, and it's why
> > > you're reluctant to ask users if they prefer a syntax
> > > that they may be more familiar with.
> > >
> > > Another example of the problems associated with encoding
> > > semantics into identifiers.
> > >
> > > One could argue that XRI is here because of the
> > > semantics embedded within existing identifier systems,
> > > and it's why I'm fairly sensitive about keeping them to
> > > an absolute minimum within the XRI TC.
> > >
> > > =Loren
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:12 PM
> > > To: Loren West
> > > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree that @idcommons/fen and @idcommons*fen could be
defined
> to
> > > be equivalent, but we have a real reason that we want then to be
> > > different.  The ability to explicitly state that @idcommons*fen is
an
> > > authority delegated to fen and @idcommons/fen is stuff @idcommons
> knows
> > > about fen enables a useful differentiation.
> > >
> > > This still leaves the door open for some communities to define
that
> > > e.g., @epok/loren defines an authority loren delegated by epok,
but
> > > that's a choice up to the community.  I'd rather not make it in
the
> > syntax.
> > >
> > > Fen
> > >
> > > Loren West wrote:
> > >
> > >>Actually, @idcommons/fen is anything @idcommons wants it to
> > >>be - including a delegation to a different endpoint that
> > >>fen has control over.
> > >>
> > >>It could work the same as @idcommons*fen.  I believe a user
> > >>given this option will choose it over bang or splat, and
> > >>it would be a shame if you're conducting a survey to leave
> > >>it out.
> > >>
> > >>The XRI specification says nothing about what @idcommons/fen
> > >>means, and very little about what @idcommons*fen means
> > >>other than it's a delegated means of obtaining an endpoint.
> > >>
> > >>It specifically excludes the concept of identity, or what
> > >>one identity knows about another identity, or who owns what,
> > >>or where control lies.
> > >>
> > >>=Loren
> > >>@idcommons*Loren
> > >>@idcommons/Loren
> > >>
> > >>The above examples may point to 3 different places, or to
> > >>the same place.  There isn't any expression that I have
> > >>control of any of these places.
> > >>
> > >>I believe that as soon as you express that information within
> > >>an identifier you get yourself into trouble.  It's complex
> > >>information, and changes at a different rate than the
> > >>identifier (which means it de-stabilizes the identifier
> > >>when it changes).
> > >>
> > >>It's meta-data about the resource pointed to by the
> > >>identifier, and outside the scope of this TC.
> > >>
> > >>=Loren
> > >>
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org]
> > >>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:17 PM
> > >>To: Loren West
> > >>Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >>Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Loren West wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Fen - while you're at it, you should try asking if they prefer
> > >>>@idcommons/fen to either of the above.  That works regardless
> > >>>of the change to the spec (if any).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>No, Loren - it doesn't work.  Unless we make / the delegation
> character
> > >>( which I think would be a very bad idea).  @idcommons/fen is what
> > >>idcommons authority knows about fen, as opposed to @idcommons!fen
in
> > >>which idcommons delegates to the fen authority, which is what we
want.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>I prefer bang over splat, and admit to printing a "bang name"
> > >>>on my business card in the past.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Yeah, I had one, too.  1982 or so.  I kinda like bang, too, but
I'm a
> > >>geek.  I'm looking forward to this weekend (survey) to kind out
what
> > >>normal people think.
> > >>
> > >>=Fen
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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
> .
> 
> 
> 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
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 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.




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]