[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Correction. Minutes - Joint XRI and XDI TC Telecon Thursday 2007-02-02
> [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]