Re: [xri] polyarchical -vs- hierarchal

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

I still don't quite understand the polyarchical argument. I thought XRIs even in 2.0 are already polyarchical by virtue of the ability to delegate from one node to virtually any other node, not just its "children"?


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

-----Original Message-----
From: "Chasen, Les" <les.chasen@neustar.biz>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 23:53:50 
To:<xri@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [xri] polyarchical -vs- hierarchal

Drummond –
 
 
 
In a conversation today, you stated, I think, that we need global subsegments so that we can move from simply a hierarchical relationship to a polyarchical one.  I think this means that with the advent of global subsegs we now can move from one hierarchy to another one.   I think in XDI you call these things links.   I thought we support this today through the use of REFs in the XRDS.  Now, I suppose, that you are proposing that we move this notion into the syntax layer. 
 
 
 
These examples of hierarchical XRIs truly show local delegations.
 
 
 
@ootao*west
 
@ootao*(+west)
 
 
 
These examples of polyarchical XRIs demonstrate a global relationship (link)
 
 
 
@ootao+west
 
@ootao+west*steve
 
 
 
Is this accurate?  If so, my main heartburn is that since +west in @ootao+west as currently proposed is in the context of @ootao.  This means it could be completely different then the view from +.  If we are really linking to another namespace, +west, we should get +’s view of west not @ootao.
 
 
 
Thoughts?
 
 
 
 
 
contact:  <http://xri.net/=les> =les
 
sip <http://xri.net/=les/(+phone)> : =les/(+phone)            
 
chat:  <http://xri.net/=les/skype/chat> =les/skype/chat