[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Minutes: Special XRI TC Telecon Noon PT Friday 2007-08-24
We also got sidetracked into a conversation on CID verification that I think will need to get re-visited. Drummond explained how it is possible for CID verification to pass if a parent XRD does not contain a CID while the child does. The exact scenario discussed was @cordance*Drummond*home where @cordance and *home have CIDs but *Drummond does not ... but cid verification still passes. I think this is wrong and against the original intent of cid verification. We MUST verify that every XRD in a hierarchical chain verify with the parent XRD. This means that every XRD must have a CID and each CID must contain the parent node in it's fully qualified CID. So if @cordance has cid = @!1 then *Drummond must have a CID that begins with @!1. If we assume *drummond's cid is @!1!2 then *home needs to have a cid that starts with @!1!2. contact: =les sip: =les/(+phone) chat: =les/skype/chat > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 6:12 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Minutes: Special XRI TC Telecon Noon PT Friday 2007-08-24 > > Following are the minutes of the special unofficial XRI TC telecon held > at: > > Date: Friday, 24 August 2007 USA > Time: 12:00PM - 1:00PM Pacific Time > > TO ACCESS THE AUDIO CONFERENCE: > Dial In Number: 571-434-5750 > Conference ID: 5474 > > ATTENDING > > Wil Tan > Markus Sabadello > Les Chasen > Drummond Reed > > > The subject of the call was the current synonym semantics proposal at: > > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/SynonymSemantics > > Key points from the call: > > * We briefly discussed Bill Barnhill's proposal to the list but the > conclusion was that: a) we don't want to change the definitions of > LocalID, > CanonicalID, and Ref due both to the installed base and to the fact that > there is (now) relatively strong consensus on the use of these synonym > elements (see below), and b) adding attributes to a single synonym element > does not enable control at the XML schema level of cardinality, which is > important for elements such as CanonicalID (and the proposed UseCID). > > * We had a long discussion about the underlying needs for applications to > store a persistent identifier for a resource, touching upon many different > potential scenerios: when they are constrained (by schema or data store) > to > having only one, when they can keep alternates, when they need to know > equivalence relationships, etc. > > * We also discussed the use cases that require a target resources to > merge, > migrate, or simply associate identifiers, such as an individual moving > from > one community to another or two businesses merging. > > * We established that have consensus about the purpose and uses of Ref. > The > only inputs that determined whether a Ref is following or not are the > QXRI, > the refs= parameter, and the service endpoint selection parameters. The > cid > parameter will NOT affect affecting Ref processing. > > * We also have consensus that EquivID should have zero-or-more > cardinality, > is used to express equivalence relationships between identifiers, and can > be > used in conjunction with the priority attribute to express the priority of > such equivalence assertions. > > * Where we do not have consensus yet is if or how an XRD should enable > expression of a "stronger than equivalence" mapping relationship between > two > identifiers. Such a relationship might be called "directional", > "precessor/successor", "migration", "replacement", "preference", > "redirect", > or many other terms. > > * Les proposed that we define a PreferredID element for this purpose with > roughly the following definition: "The purpose of this tag is to express > the > preferred identifier for the target resource if that preferred identifier > is > not the QXRI or CanonicalID. It is recommended that applications retain > this > identifier in their local account for future reference to this resource." > > * Drummond proposed that the core underlying motivation is to support the > need of XRD authors to inform consuming applications that they should > associate two primary global foreign keys for a resource. > > * After 2.5 hours of discussion, we agreed that next step is for all TC > members who have specific views on this issue to post their views to the > SynonymSemantics page of the wiki. > > * There will be another followup call on this topic on the same telecon > number at 8AM PT/11AM ET Monday August 27th. > > =Drummond > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]