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: GCS chars and star in XRI authority resolution


I agree with Mike about the special treatment of "!".

Also, the proposal about submitting "@foo" to the @ authority seems wrong to me. For regularity, you should be submitting "*foo". @ is syntactically and semantically separate from foo (they identify two separate authorities, among other things), so it seems odd we should submit @foo. 1.0 resolution specifies adding a . (which would now become a *) and I think we should continue to use that rule for resolution absent some compelling reason.

	-Gabe

 
__________________________________________________ 
gwachob@visa.com
Chief Systems Architect
Technology Strategies and Standards
Visa International 
Phone: +1.650.432.3696   Fax: +1.650.554.6817


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:58 AM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] RE: GCS chars and star in XRI authority resolution
> 
> 
> While the ABNF is nominally simpler using the production 
> below, it makes XRIs less regular and harder to understand 
> from a human perspective.  If we allow "@!", I belive that we 
> need a very strong reason not to also allow "@*".
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:56 PM
> > To: Lindelsee, Mike ; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [xri] RE: GCS chars and star in XRI authority 
> resolution
> > 
> > 
> > In retrospect I believe we erred in the 1.0 BNF in allowing 
> > what was then
> > dot (and is now star) after a GCS character. I believe a 
> > cleaner approach in
> > XRI 1.1 would be the following rationale: 
> > 
> > 1) All the GCS chars except "!" are "proxies" for "*", in 
> > that they default
> > to a reassignable subsegment. 
> > 
> > 2) Therefore, there is no need for * following a GCS 
> character. It is
> > redundant - the equivalent of "**", which makes no sense.
> > 
> > 3) Therefore the simplest rule, which eliminates any 
> confusion and any
> > chance of false negatives in a equivalence comparision, is 
> > 
> > GCS-authority    =  gcs-char [ "!" ] [ nz-segment ]
> > 
> > Also, to keep XRI resolution consistent, the GCS char would 
> be treated
> > exactly the same as star in subsegment resolution, i.e., it would be
> > submitted as part of the string being resolved when resolving 
> > against a GCS
> > root. For example, when resolving "@foo*bar", the string 
> > submitted to the
> > "@" authority would be "@foo", and the string submitted to 
> the "@foo"
> > authority would be "*bar".
> > 
> > =Drummond 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 3:57 PM
> > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [xri] RE: GCS chars and star in XRI authority resolution
> > 
> > My preference would be to stick to a completely regular 
> syntax.  I.e.,
> > always prefix the sub-segment that follows the GCS char with 
> > a "*" or a "!",
> > but I realize that this won't be satisfactory for many 
> > others, so I think we
> > should stick with xri 1.0 rules/syntax wrt this issue and 
> > allow any of:
> > 
> >    xri:@foo
> >    xri:@!foo
> >    xri:@*foo
> > 
> > where xri:@foo is equivalent to xri:@*foo.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 3:15 PM
> > > To: Lindelsee, Mike ; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: GCS chars and star in XRI authority resolution
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Per the question Mike raises: "The inclusion (or not) of the 
> > > delimiter that
> > > indicates reassignability or persistence in the sub-segment 
> > that gets
> > > resolved is something that we'll still need to discuss as 
> we revisit
> > > resolution for 1.1."
> > > 
> > > I'd like to propose something I think will make both 
> > > equivalence and XRI
> > > authority resolution simpler in 1.1.
> > > 
> > > Per the BNF I just posted following Dave's suggestion, a 
> GCS-rooted
> > > authority segment would be:
> > > 
> > > GCS-authority    =  gcs-char [ "!" / "*" ] [ nz-segment ]
> > > 
> > > Therefore a GCS char can be followed by either an nz-segment, 
> > > or !, or *. So
> > > the following are all legal:
> > > 
> > > @foo
> > > @*foo
> > > @!foo
> > > 
> > > In XRI 1.0 we treated "@foo" and "@*foo" as equivalent. We 
> > > said the * was
> > > "assumed" with any GCS char. 
> > > 
> > > In XRI 1.1 I'd propose that we simplify things in one of two ways:
> > > 
> > > OPTION 1: BY NOT DEFINING GCS-CHAR AND GCS-CHAR* AS EQUIVALENT
> > > 
> > > Instead, the rules would be that:
> > > 
> > > 1) By default, the nz-segment following a GCS char is 
> reassignable.
> > > 2) In XRI authority resolution, if EITHER ! or * preceed an 
> > > nz-sub-segment,
> > > they are treated as part of the nz-sub-segment from the 
> > standpoint of
> > > resolution, i.e., are part of the value being resolved.
> > > 
> > > By these rules, @foo, @*foo, and @!foo are all different 
> > > values. "foo" is a
> > > reassignable sub-segment in both "@foo" and "@*foo" by 
> > definition, but
> > > "@foo" and "@*foo" are not equivalent.
> > > 
> > > OPTION 2: BY NOT ALLOWING * DIRECTLY AFTER A GCS CHAR
> > > 
> > > In ths option, the BNF would be:
> > > 
> > > GCS-authority    =  gcs-char [ "!" ] [ nz-segment ]
> > > 
> > > Again, the same two rules proposed in Option 1 would apply. 
> > > Only now you can
> > > just have "@foo" and "@!foo", because "@*foo" is illegal.
> > > 
> > > I believe this is actually the option most consistent with 
> > > the rule that by
> > > default, the nz-sub-segment following a GCS char is 
> > > reassignable, because it
> > > means that the * is already inherent in the GCS char, just 
> > > the way it is
> > > inherent in a slash (reassignable sub-segment being the 
> > default after
> > > slash).
> > > 
> > > Which do folks prefer?
> > > 
> > > =Drummond 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
> > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:10 PM
> > > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and 
> > > issues analysis
> > > 
> > > Bill,
> > > 
> > > I'm not clear which XRI ABNF you are asking your questions 
> > > with respect to.
> > > I don't believe that the XRI below (xri:@example*:23:45) 
> > > would be valid
> > > using XRI 1.0 syntax ('*' is only allowed as a GCS character 
> > > in 1.0).  The
> > > XRI also wouldn't be valid in the original 1.1 ABNF ('*' 
> > and ':' can't
> > > follow one another). It would be valid in the various 
> > > iterations of the ABNF
> > > that Dave, Drummond and I have been discussing on the list -- 
> > > though the
> > > interpretation of the sub-segments might be slightly 
> > > different between the
> > > various iterations.
> > > 
> > > The latest proposal would break the XRI up as follows:
> > > 
> > > 1:  @
> > > 2:  *example   (reassignable sub-segment - and showing 
> > > implicit delimiter)
> > > 3:  *:23:45    (reassignable sub-segment)
> > > 
> > > The inclusion (or not) of the delimiter that indicates 
> > > reassignability or
> > > persistence in the sub-segment that gets resolved is 
> > > something that we'll
> > > still need to discuss as we revisit resolution for 1.1.
> > > 
> > > Mike
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Barnhill William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 11:03 AM
> > > > To: Lindelsee, Mike 
> > > > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: Re: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and 
> > > > issues analysis
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Looks good to me as well, but some questions...
> > > > (1) Is this XRI valid? xri:@example*:23:45
> > > > (2) If valid, would it represent 4 resolution steps:
> > > > 1:   @
> > > > 2:     .example
> > > > 3:        *:23
> > > > 4:           *:45
> > > > With the '. on 1: and the '*' on 4 being implicitly stated.
> > > > 
> > > > (3) If the above XRI is suppose to respresent 4 resolution 
> > > > steps do not 
> > > > the new rules result in only 3 steps? As :23:45 would be 
> > > > considered one 
> > > > segment.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Bill Barnhill
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 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]