[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage
I don't understand how *example and !example are absolutely
identical from the standpoint of resolution. When I suggested we consider them
to be equivalent (with the ! being meerly a claim of persistence that can be
ignored for purposes of resolution and equivalence checking) you over-ruled me
by insisting they are in two different namespaces. If they're in two
different namespaces, I don't see how they can be identical from the standpoint
of resolution.
Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com;
CISSP
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist Computing Security Infrastructure (206) 679-5933 From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:37 PM To: 'Chasen, Les'; Schleiff, Marty; xri@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage Les, I know you have been
saying, “if there is a grammatical difference then it should mean that we do
something different in the only client we define, resolution”. After some
reflection, I no longer believe that’s true. Here’s my logic: the
XRIs *example and !example are absolutely identical from the standpoint of
resolution. However “grammatically” they have very different meanings – one is
used for a reassignable identifier and one is use for a persistent identifier.
That’s very important to XRI authors and XRI consumers, but not to the
resolution infrastructure. Therefore, the test I
think we should be applying is the one Marty has been asking for: “If there is a
grammatical difference, XRI authors should know when to use which type of
cross-reference – direct or parenthetical.” I believe the answer
posted today on http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation
is crystal clear: use a direct cross-reference when you are only crossing two
contexts, and use a parenthetical cross-reference when you must cross three
contexts. The first will be very common, the second will be rare – as rare as
putting English words in “quotes” or
(parentheticals). The fact that we
started with the rare case before we discovered the common case is, IMHO, what
has caused our deliberations to take so long. It’s not without precedent – 2.5
years ago the TC struggled for several months over switching from dots and
semicolons to stars and bangs as subsegment delimiters. Today we take it for
granted that you can use dots in a i-name. I know I sound like a broken record,
but I believe the same will be true for direct
concatenation. I agree with you that
it’s great to finally be getting input from others on the TC who have not been
as close to the discussion. I also look forward to the feedback from non-TC
members that we’ll be getting at the XRI sessions we’ll be holding at IIW next
week. I too can hardly wait
for us to close and get XRI Syntax 2.1 in production. I’m going to be
concentrating hard tomorrow and Sunday on posting the first editor’s draft of
XRI Resolution 2.0 Working Draft 11 so we can finally get that into
production. =Drummond
From: Chasen,
Les [mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz] I am not getting the
grammatical difference either. We have discussed many different grammars
over the past few weeks. There was the difference between a word in quotes
and not in quotes, there was talking about “THE” or “A” entity in the xref,
there was some discussion of direct concatenation meta data being factual real
data about the entity in the xref and in the local context being the parents
opinionated view on the xref, and now possession for direct concatenation and
I’m not sure I understand the parenthetical option. I have been saying for
a long time that IMHO if there is a grammatical difference then it should mean
that we do something different in the only client we define, resolution.
If there is no significant difference and therefore no difference in behavior
then we are back to equivalence. We have also discussed
a potential middle ground of allowing direct concatenation of the two GCS
characters that are currently not resolvable, + and
$. The editors have been
debating this issue for some time. I think we have posted a lot of good
info to this list about the issues. I would like to strongly encourage the
other members of this list to please speak up. I understand the wish to
have a simpler syntax one that is more intuitive to end users. I am
all for it but it doesn’t come about by magic. To me it is up to the
community on how we proceed. From: Schleiff,
Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] Hi Drummond (&
All), I'm somewhat relieved
that in both cases (without parens and with parens) the referenced global XRI is
an identifier for the target resource that can be used independently of the
parent context. So, "@bbb" ALWAYS means the same named resource, whether it
stands alone, or is in an xref with parens like "@aaa+(@bbb)", or is referenced
in direct concatenation like "@aaa@bbb". I think the grammatical
implications of each (without parents and with parens) are insufficiently
described. You've described a syntactic difference that has no meaningful
explanation. Why would someone care to cross two contexts as opposed to crossing
three contexts? You are still searching for meaningful grammer to
assign to the syntax, instead of designing syntax to support meaningful grammar.
This is backwards, akin to deriving the abstract syntax from the concrete
syntax. Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com;
CISSP From: Drummond
Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 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] 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] 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 From: Markus
Sabadello [mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com] Hey, greetings, On 5/10/07, Drummond Reed <
drummond.reed@cordance.net > wrote: Bill, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]