[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [Openxri-users] Thoughts about XRI aliases
The “problem” of which I speak
is that very smart people such as Markus are forced to ask questions such as: Markus asked: > Since @free*a*b and @free*a are aliases, they also share their
authority resolution SEP. > @free*a*b 's own authority and parent authority are the same. > Which means that @free*a*b is also available as @free*a*b*b,
which is > also available as @free*a*b*b*b*b*b*b*b*b*b, etc. If we (do the correct thing and) formalize
the authority graph model from the get-go, then there should be nothing to ask.
It becomes extremely simple: Express @free*a*b (etc) as a graph, and then ask
if the graph is verifiable. Gabe, if you want to define “ancillary”
XRI graph models (that don’t, for example, verify under CID verification,
or verify in different ways) then that is perfectly fine. (I really really mean
this.) But I feel that you are suggesting we
should have no graph formalized graph model at all. Yikes. ~ Steve From: Gabe Wachob
[mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] The important thing is that all this type
of crap just doesn’t matter! The XRI authority graph resulting from this
little exercise is not verifiable, and thus whatever results from XRI
resolution is just “noise” in the XRI space. But if you
don’t look at the problem from a graph perspective, then it becomes
really hard to see this. I repeat (to everyone in this TC) if you don’t
look at the problem from a graph perspective, then it becomes really hard to
see this.
Steve calls it a
“problem”, I call it a “feature” ;-) -Gabe |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]