As promised, I just
posted an update to the Direct Concatenation wiki page with the “grammatical
rules” for cross-reference usage. See section 4 of:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation
I believe – and I know
I’m going way out on a limb here – that they will satisfy *both* Marty and Les. The reason is that
they address Marty’s concern that the rules proposed last week were
counterintuitive because they required a parenthetical cross-reference to NOT
represent a globally-identified resource, and also Les’s concern that the
difference between direct concatenation and parenthetical encapsulation must be
clean and clear.
And the very best part?
They are simple and straightforward with no funky
exceptions.
Feedback gladly
solicited.
=Drummond
From: Drummond
Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:54
PM
To: 'Schleiff, Marty';
'Markus Sabadello'
Cc:
'Barnhill, William'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] More on Special XRI TC
Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
I find these arguments
persuasive. I’m working this afternoon on addressing Marty’s issue of making
sure direct concatenation can be both simple from a user perspective and
conceptually simple. I’ll post something as soon as I
can.
=Drummond
From: Schleiff,
Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:36
PM
To: Markus Sabadello;
Drummond Reed
Cc: Barnhill,
William; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] More on Special XRI TC
Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
Sadly, it seems to me
that every time we raise issues with a recent proposal, we get a new proposal
that is even more complex than the prior one. I agree with Markus that
Cross-Resolution is too complicated.
If we're going to
change anything at all, the focus should be on simplification. I'm not opposed
to direct concatenation if we can figure out how to make it simple (including
simple from the user perspective AND conceptually simple). I believe that every
subsequent enhancement to the original direct concatenation proposal introduces
new complexities, and even breaks concepts that were clear in earlier
versions.
OpenId is looking
better all the time. It's nowhere near as rich, but it's nowhere near as
complex.
Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com;
CISSP
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber
Identity Specialist
Computing Security
Infrastructure
(206) 679-5933
From: Markus
Sabadello [mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:34
PM
To: Drummond
Reed
Cc: Barnhill, William;
xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] More on Special XRI TC
Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
Hey,
By now I also have a little bit of an
opinion on this..
Since I'm still new to XRI, I see everything more from
a user's perspective. I like Direct Concatentation because it makes i-names
simpler. No non-techie will ever enter =yourname/(+contact) in any browser or
other program, but =yourname/+contact may have a chance.
As far as the
Social Vulnerability is concerned, I am a bit confused by the role of
<Ref> in Cross-Resolution. <Ref> is used for external references,
i.e. to look somewhere else for a SEP if none could be found. It tells you that
two XRIs identify the same target resource. Same with <Backref>. Now in my
understanding, Cross-Resolution is intended to be used to verify a claimed
relationship between a parent and child authority, which is something completely
different. To mix these two mechanisms sounds scary to me.
I think there
should be no Cross-Resolution at all. Like Bill said, because it should be
possible on a technical level to make any statements.. And also because of
simplicity. Cross-Resolution makes things much more complicated and people won't
know when and how to use it. We already have CanonicalID verification.
That's enough. :)
On 5/10/07, Drummond Reed <
drummond.reed@cordance.net > wrote:
Bill,
Thanks very much for posting
your views. I think you make a very important
point that I haven't heard
expressed by the other editors. As you sum it up:
"I think a data
authority needs to be able to make statements about other
data authorities
without their permission, otherwise any reputation or
review system goes out
the window, in my opinion. There are ways around
that, but I'm not sure
they'd work well."
I think this means that you would argue that the
cross-resolution proposal
that appears on
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/EqualsAtSocialVulnerability
should be
an optional feature of an XRI resolver, not a required feature.
This is a subject I'd like to discuss further on the TC telecon tomorrow
(under #3 on the agenda I just sent out). I hope you'll be able to make
it.
=Drummond
-----Original Message-----
From: Barnhill,
William [mailto:
barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:16 PM
To:
Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] More on
Special XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday
2007-05-09
Unfortunately I
will be unable to make the call it looks like, but I do
have some
comments:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation
:
- For $ip, how would ipv6 be represented
- In the weeds, but it would be
nice if PTR syntax was supported by
$DNS. If not, then vendors can come up
with a method as they need to.
- Wouldn't #11's mailto:.. Need to be in an
xref?
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/EqualsAtSocialVulnerability
:
Social Vulnerability of =/@ Concatenation:
-Rather than
"Therefore the use of an =name or @name in the context of
another =name or
@name implies a direct relationship between these
resources that may or may
not exist in reality", I view it as "Therefore
the use of an =nameA or
@nameA in the context of another =nameB or
@nameB implies that the data
authority for =nameB or @nameB is making a
statement about =nameA or @nameA
that may or may not be true, and may or
may not be agreed upon by the data
authority for =nameA or @nameA."
Confusion of @ Name Concatentation with
Email Address Syntax:
Yes, this will be a problem. Not sure it's a technical
problem though,
but one of perception.
It sounds like options 1-8 all
disallow authority A making statements
about authority B (Note I'm using
'about' not 'for'). Not sure if any of
them would allow A to make statements
about B if A used the long version
of xref sytnax or not. I think
when we start saying that data for which
A is an authority is governed by
certain restrictions it starts sliding
the slope of special cases. I can put
on my website that Mr. 1234 is an
3-eyed sloth. Doesn't mean that he is, and
if I claim that information
is true and it's not that should affect the
reputation associated with
my identity. If what I say about him falls under
certain guidelines it
will be actionable as libel. Either way the
issue is a social or legal
one, not technical.
I think a data
authority needs to be able to make statements about other
data authorities
without their permission, otherwise any reputation or
review system goes out
the window, in my opinion. There are ways around
that, but I'm not sure
they'd work well.
--
William
Barnhill Phone:
(315)
491-6765
Associate
Email: barnhill_william@bah.com
Booz | Allen |
Hamilton
i-name: =Bill.Barnhill
"Delivering results that endure"
-----Original
Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto: drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007
5:17 AM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] More on Special XRI
TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday
2007-05-09
Two new wiki pages have been
posted to provide the background for the
issues to be discussed on the
special XRI TC telecon Wednesday at 1PM PT
(see telecon info
below):
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/EqualsAtSocialVulnerability
The first one describes direct concatenation syntax, parse trees,
and
resolution rules. The second one describes the social
vulnerability
problem of =/@ concatenation and a slate of proposed
solutions.
Please read them over before the call if you are
able.
=Drummond
-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:
drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:46 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Special XRI TC
Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
XRI TC Members:
As the XRI
Syntax editors try to close the last key issues remaining
before producing
XRI Syntax 2.1, we will be holding a special telecon
open to all members of
the TC this Wednesday at 1PM Pacific time. This
call will be in addition to
our normal call on Thursdays at 10AM PT.
We will send out an additional
email with an agenda and wiki links
before the telecon, but we want to invite
all TC members to put in on
their calendars.
We will use the standard
TC telecon number (thanks to NeuStar for
hosting
this):
TO ACCESS
THE AUDIO CONFERENCE:
Dial In Number:
571-434-5750
Conference ID:
5474
=Drummond