Re: [xri] Questions regarding XRI Resoution as client of 2.1 abstract syntax

["=?UTF-8?B?VGFuLCBXaWxsaWFt?=" <william.tan@neustar.biz>]

[Replying with my blackberry.]

Drummond's proposal includes sticky stars and bangs.

What it means is that when the parser sees 

@foo+bar*baz 

It has to make +bar*baz into a global xref, which is resolved against @foo in its entirety. While the resolver doesn't care about sticky delims, the parser has to be aware of it.

Your questions led me to think about how the new syntax would affect the various components. So, I too have some questions for Drummond but I need to first think it through before sending.



--
http://xri.net/=wil      

-----Original Message-----
From: "Steven Churchill" <steven.churchill@xdi.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:59:09 
To:<xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [xri] Questions regarding XRI Resoution as client of 2.1 abstract syntax

Drummond,
 
 I have some questions regarding the proposed 2.1 abstract syntax and XRI
 Resolution as client.
 
 For the benefit of those on the list who haven't been steeped in XRI
 Resolution, let me give some context. [Drummond, my questions are below.]
 The resolver invokes the XRI parser which returns a syntax tree conforming
 to the abstract syntax. During the "authority resolution" phase, the
 resolver walks through the top-level subsegments of this tree passing the
 name of the "next" subsegment to the authority resolution service of the
 "previous" subsegment, until it gets to then end.
 
 In the 2.0 abstract syntax, the subsegments had two types--persistent and
 reassignable. The notion of persistence is simply a convention for authority
 resolution services (their registries) as follows: If I pay my registry for
 a "bang" (persistent) identifier, then my registry should not reassign that
 identifier to someone else, even if I stop paying my bill.
 
 In the proposed 2.1 abstract syntax, the subsegments have seven types. Here
 are my questions for Drummond:
 
 1.      Does the resolver still walk through the top-level subsegments (that
 is, passing the name of the "next" subsegment to the authority resolution
 service of the "previous" subsegment) as described above? [I would assume
 the answer is yes.]
 
 2.      Can authority resolution services now accept 7 types of query? [I
 would assume the answer is yes.]
 
 3.      Does the resolver algorithm distinguish between "global" and "local"
 subsegments. [I would assume the answer is no. The resolver simply walks
 down the list of top-level subsegment invoking the authority resolution
 services.]
 
 4.      Are six of the subsegment types reassignable and only one (bang)
 persistent (as per the definition above)?
 
 5.      If the answer to 3 above is "no", then why does the parser care
 about sticky stars?
 
 Thanks,
 
 ~ Steve