[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xdi] Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 2007-01-04
[So here we go. First of many minutes. Please let me know if these are too detailed or if I missed anyone.] Following are the minutes for the joint unofficial telecon of the XRI and XDI TCs at: Date: Thursday, 2nd February January 2007 USA (Friday morning Asia) Time: 4:00PM - 5:30PM PT ATTENDING Gabe Wachob Drummond Reed Laurie Rae Steven Churchill Marty Schleiff Bill Barnhill Paul Biciunas AGENDA 1) PROPOSAL TO APPOINT NEW SECRETARY It was agreed that Laurie Rae will take over responsibility as the Secretary for both the XRI and XDI TCs. She will distribute weekly minutes and agendas for the unofficial joint XRI XDI TC meetings. 2) XRI FORMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS LADDER We agreed to the changes proposed by Marty and Drummond at: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/FormsAndTransformations * Action Item:The rest of the steps for XRI-Normal Form need to be completed by Marty based on the rules currently listed in the Canonical Form section of XriCd02/Xri2dot1Formats. These should also include the new rules in XriCd02/CompactSyntax. 3) XRI SYNTAX 2.1 COMPACT SYNTAX PROPOSAL There was extensive discussion about the following proposal: http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/CompactSyntax The discussion on this item continued until 5:20, when we decided to review the RDFX proposal (see below). Key Points: * Questions were raised as to whether we should have optional syntax at all. * Many questions were raised around nested cross-references. Does the compact syntax mean that certain nested x-refs are not supported? The compact representation of nested x-refs seems problematic, especially wrt to trying to "uncompact" a nested x-ref. * Stephen raised a concern that dropping the delegation symbol is too extreme. Why not have =example*+blog? He agreed that this was a trivial issue for machine processing, but for human readers, it requires a context switch. * Gabe added a problems section to the wiki page. Everyone added their own concerns to the list as the meeting progressed. The detailed list is provided at the end of this document. Outcome: It was agreed that the proposal comprises two separate proposals: 1) a proposal about compact form 2) a proposal that compact form be normal. Further discussion is required. 4) XDI RDFX PROPOSAL We did not have a lot of time for this item, but extended the meeting by another half hour to review the proposal. Key Points: * Bill Barnhill sent a proposal for "X3" notation. * Concerns were raised that we were inventing a new syntax for RDF? It was suggested that we look into TriX and other existing serializations. It was argued that the addressing syntax in a certain way simplifies by using a single xri for representing any resource. * It was mentioned that the uris in RDF don't identify instances of that use of a predicate in a statement. That is, the identifier isn't reifying the use of the predicate. * It was also suggested that we use ($IsA), ($HasA) to express the relationships. * It was also suggested that with RDFX, you wouldn't be able to have anonymous nodes, which is something that RDF doesn't provide. * It was also suggested that we consider using the data URL scheme. It was agreed that this required further consideration. Action Item: Spend some time considering how the RDF Reification vocabulary might be used instead. We will also explore an RDF XML serialization of the proposed RDFX Model. Action Item: An updated version of the proposal will be discussed with Mark Wahl on Wednesday. The results of this discussion will be covered during the unofficial Appendix A) Problems posted to http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/CompactSyntax: =example*(+tag1*(+tag2)) becomes the same as =example*(+tag1)*(+tag2) this implies I cannot extract (+tag1*(+tag2)) as a unit, but =example*(+tag1*( http://foo.com)) is not the same as =example*(+tag1)* ( http://foo.com) So, the ability to extract (+tag1*( http://foo.com)) as a unit is preserved, but I cannot extract (+tag1*(+tag2)) as a unit Double - xref: =example*((+tag1*(+tag2))) ? (Gabe) Solution proposed by Drummond to this problem: Have the delimiter apply until have the delimiter apply until you reach the next parameter Does =example.name*(tag1)*(tag2) become =example.name(tag1)(tag2) ? (Marty) Suggestion: the better options is to use double parens. This is still under discussion. So the =example.name*(+foo)*(+bar) first becomes =example.name(+foo)(+bar), and then becomes =example.name+foo+bar? (Bill) How about =example!(+foo) ? (Steve) Decision: You always have to keep !. Therefore, delegation characters can only be eliminated in the non-persistent case. if "+tag1*(+tag2)" becomes "+tag1+tag2" then "=example*(+tag1*(+tag2))" should equal "=example*(+tag1+tag2)" and should equal "=example+tag1+tag2", so I don't think you can logically say you can't compact an xref containing another xref. (Marty) Issue: Shouldn't it be changed so that the outer parentheses disappear?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]