> I know that Steve and I lost the
"direct concatenization" vs. "compact syntax" vote, but I'd
just
> like to point out that under compact
syntax "@ootao+west" normalizes to
"@ootao*(+west)".
> And if "@ootao*west"
and "@ootao+west" are declared as synonyms, then you could logically
> deduce that
"@ootao*west*steve" and "@ootao*(+west)*steve" are synonyms.
I agree. I’d just like to point out
that the way that the two would be “declared as synonyms” is that “*(+west)”
would be added as a local synonym to “*west”.
~ Steve
From: Schleiff, Marty
[mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007
3:54 PM
To: Barnhill, William;
xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Increased
complexity in resolver.
Hi Bill & Steve (& All),
I think Steve meant that EVEN IF
"@ootao*west" and "@ootao+west" are declared as synonyms,
then "@ootao*west*steve" and "@ootao+west*steve" are not
synonyms (unless they are explicitly declared as synonyms).
I know that Steve and I lost the
"direct concatenization" vs. "compact syntax" vote, but I'd
just like to point out that under compact syntax
"@ootao+west" normalizes to
"@ootao*(+west)". And if "@ootao*west" and "@ootao+west"
are declared as synonyms, then you could logically deduce that
"@ootao*west*steve" and "@ootao*(+west)*steve" are
synonyms.
Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
Associate
Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing
Security Infrastructure
(206)
679-5933
From: Barnhill,
William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007
9:36 AM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Increased
complexity in resolver.
Hi all,
Having just gotten back myself I also am trying to catch up.
Steve, can you explain what you mean by "even though
@ootao*west and @ootao+west are both synonyms."?
I thought the resolution sequence of subsegments to be the following after
normalization:
@ootao*west => @, *ootao, *west
@ootao+west => @, *ootao, *(+west)
@ootao*(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)
@ootao(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)
Is this incorrect?
From what you said I got the idea that it's actually
@ootao*west => @, *ootao, *west
@ootao+west => @, *ootao, *west
@ootao*(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)
@ootao(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)
Which doesn't seem to make sense to me, so I'm betting I misunderstand.
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Fri 4/27/2007 11:31 PM
To: steven.churchill@xdi.org; gabe.wachob@amsoft.net; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.
Hi All,
I'm just trying to catch up on this thread - I've been unavailable all week
until now.
I think Steve is right. You can't have a top level local ref following a global
ref, because it would end up being part of the global ref.
Even using parens, the closest you could come would be to have a local xref
containing a global ref, with a local ref following the closing paren.
I don't envy Drummond for his task of providing guidelines describing when a
minter should use local vs. global delimiters. I'll be amazed if he can do it
(note that Drummond has amazed me more than once).
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Churchill <steven.churchill@xdi.org>
To: 'Gabe Wachob'
<gabe.wachob@amsoft.net>; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
<xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Fri Apr 27 18:17:48 2007
Subject: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.
Gabe,
Here's how the proposal would work I think: an authority that has a global
xref as a synonym may have local delegation beneath it (as in node C in my
diagram) but one cannot resolve "through" the global xref.
That's why I say
that @ootao*west*steve is not a synonym for @ootao+west*steve even though
@ootao*west and @ootao+west are both synonyms.
Thinking about it more, perhaps I was incorrect in my previous email: maybe
the resolver doesn't need to enforce the restriction after all, because the
parser's syntax tree cannot have a top-level local subsegment following a
top-level global xref.
Drummond, is this last statement true, or is there any way -- using parens
or what have you -- to do this?
~ Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:48 PM
To: 'Steven Churchill'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.
Steve-
Huh? Maybe because its Friday at almost 6pm, but I'm totally lost.
Why does the next sub-segment have to be a global xref?
-Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.
>
>
> (Please refer to increased-complexity-in-authority-graph.doc. This is the
> same one I sent earlier.)
>
> So the resolver is walking across the top-level subsegments. It encounters
> a
> global xref, so it duly invokes the authority resolution service (of the
> previous subsegment). It gets back an XRD. Now the resolver needs to
> evaluate the type of the next subsegment -- if it's another global xref
> then
> it can continue walking. Else it has to error out.
>
> I would sure hate to see that type of logic in the resolution spec.
>
> ~ Steve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:33 PM
> To: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: FW: [xri] Flat structure for local delegation within global xrefs
>
>
> I think I've managed to confused everyone (again) by sending the wrong
> document.
>
> The attachment increased-complexity-in-authority-graph.doc summarizes my
> discussion with Drummond yesterday. For one thing, I fear that we've
> redefined the meaning of the term "XRI synonym". In the diagram
you will
> note that when adding the localID "+west", @ootao*west is
(still) a
> synonym
> for @ootao+west (they resolve to the same XRD), but @ootao*west*steve
> would
> no longer be a synonym for @ootao+west*steve.
>
> The other attachment (increased-complexity-in-authority-graph-
> flatness.doc)
> talks about the flat structure for local delegation within global xrefs.
>
> ~ Steve
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:22 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Flat structure for local delegation within global xrefs
>
> (Blech.)
>
> Please see attached.
>
> ~ Steve
>