[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Identifiers and identity (part 3)
In this third and final part, I will use the data model described
in part 1 to explain why the term “synonym” in the resolution spec
is misused. Part 1 of this series explains that our identity model
contains a means of associating an identifier with an entity, where identity is the set of characteristics that
distinguish one entity from another. In XRI land, the entity is the
XRI authority, where the single characteristic that distinguishes one authority
from another is the CanonicalID. The identifier is the XRI that is passed to an
XRI resolver as the means for associating that identifier with its authority. If you examine the diagram attached to part 1, you will
notice that the concept of synonymity appears only on the left side of the
diagram (in identifier land.) This is because the concept exists only within
the framework—the identity model—of the XRI client application. For
example, if a client gets back the same CanonicalID when resolving
=steven.churchill and @ootao*steven then the client is free to use an identity
model that considers these identifiers as synonyms
for a single identity. (And thus, for example, the client is free to store the
CanonicalID as the PK for its user account.) But many client applications
might consider this notion absurd and instead have different notions of
identity and synonymity—or none at all. The Resolution Specification makes the conceptual error of
using the term “synonym” in regard to the right side of the diagram
(in identity land). This is in an
attempt to categorize a set of the authority’s data elements and call
them “synonyms”. The spec incorrectly refers to CanonicalIDs,
LocalIDs, Refs, BackRefs, MapToIDs, and the like, as synonyms. The terms use in
this context is arbitrary and obfuscating. Like beauty, synonymity is in the eye of the beholder. Only
the client application can determine the synonymity model, and the client
application only applies this notion to identifiers. (Okay, there is one exception to this rule. It is okay to
think of a “local identifiers” such as *steve and *steven” as
being “local synonyms” within the same registry namespace. This
notion occurs on the right side of the diagram.) Conclusion In three parts I have attempted to present the XRI authority
model and dispel some of the confusion surrounding identity, authority,
synonymity, and so forth. The irony is that despite the ongoing confusion in
the TC and in the spec, the essence of the described identity model still
stands as the underlying foundation of XRI resolution. This makes XRI
resolution an elegant and exceptionally strong framework for solving many
real-world problems for years to come. Will the concepts I’ve presented here be ignored by
the XRI TC (as they have continually over the last year)? Yes: I have little
doubt about that. I believe, nonetheless, that it makes absolute sense for me
to articulate these ideas at least once on the public list. ‘Nuff said. I will now disappear back into the
woodwork. ~ Steve |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]