[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Direct descendant vs. family descendant CIDs (was RE: [xri] Minutes: Special XRI TC Telecon Noon PT Friday 2007-08-24)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 8:39 PM > To: Chasen, Les; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Direct descendant vs. family descendant CIDs (was RE: [xri] > Minutes: Special XRI TC Telecon Noon PT Friday 2007-08-24) > > Les, this requires that each CID being a direct child of the parent CID. > That's fine if we decide to require that. What we discussed on the call is > an equally veriable but more flexible rule where each CID must consist of > valid subsegments from all of its parents. [Chasen, Les] I apologize if I missed when we in the TC we discussed or traded emails on this new proposal. I thought until yesterday we were sticking with the original intent which you are calling direct descendants below. I simply do not recall ever discussing something else. > > For example, if @cordance has cid = @!1 but also has LocalID !2 and !3, > and > @cordance*drummond has LocalID !4, then any of the following three > identifiers would be verifiable CanonicalIDs for @cordance*drummond: > > @!1!4 > @!2!4 > @!3!4 [Chasen, Les] What happens if @nuestar's cid is @!2 and @ootao has cid @!3? This does bring up another question. As I recall the intent of localId it was to contain the local portion of the absolute cid. Since we are changing the cardinality of cid to be 0-1 should we change the cardinality of the localId to 0-1? > > I'd call this approach "family descendants" and the other approach "direct > descendants". The only reason I suggest considering family descendants is > that it provides more flexibility in the assignment of CanonicalIDs at > lower > levels in the resolution chain. OTOH, if we want to be more restrictive > and > require direct descendants, that's fine too (I'm pretty sure they would be > easier and faster to verify). > > How do others feel? > > =Drummond > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chasen, Les [mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz] > > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 4:26 PM > > To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > 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]