| Bill,
FYI +contact is used for the XRI contact service. <Service>
<ProviderID>xri://!!1003!103</ProviderID>
<Type select="true">xri://+i-service*(+contact)*($v*1.0)</Type>
<Type match="null" select="false"/>
<Path match="null"/>
<Path match="default"/>
<Path>(+contact)</Path>
<URI append="qxri" priority="1">http://linksafe-contact.ezibroker.net/contact/</URI>
</Service>
So it is matched in the path for service selection.
That is why I guessed that was what Nika was after.
It is true that people do use http://xri.net/=nika/+contact even though that is not correct syntax. The proxy resolver fixes up the missing paren.
Compact syntax requires a lot of changes to the underlying model. We should probably save that for the face to face where I can throw things:)
=jbradley
On 15-Oct-08, at 10:48 AM, Drummond Reed wrote: Just to point out: =nika(+contact) is not valid XRI syntax in any version of XRI (1.0, 2.0, or the proposals for 3.0). As John pointed out, in 2.0, there must be a delimiter before the parentheses. So… =nika*(+contact) =nika!(+contact) =nika/(+contact) …are all valid XRI 2.0 syntax. The proposal for global cross-references in XRI 3.0 does not change that – any XRI subsegment encapsulated in parentheses still needs to preceeded by a delimiter. However with global cross-references, “+contact” would no longer be required to be in parentheses. So =nike+contact would be valid XRI 3.0 syntax. That said, the higher priority subject for this week is feedback on the XRI-as-relative-URI proposal at http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriAsRelativeUri. We need to finish discussing that and move that discussion to the TAG list before we move too far into the “XRI NG” discussion (which will be a major subject at our F2F). =Drummond
From: Barnhill, William [USA] [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:34 AM
To: John Bradley; Nika Jones
Cc: OASIS XRI TC
Subject: RE: [xri] Question on Tags and Cross References I thought the items previously deferred until XRI 3.0 were now going to be rolled into XRI 2.0, since we need to change the spec and then resubmit for ratification? On =nika+contact being a proposed XRI 3.0 direct concatenation and the proper 2.0 syntax being =nika/(+contact) I think the XRI TC (or XDI) need to define a profile of XRI usage that standardizes the format for contact information. The way that makes sense to me (to allow delegation without a redirect) is (for 2.0) =nika(+contact), or for (3.0) =nika+contact. There's going to be a fair number of profiles like this so might be better to just define a mechanism to publish a profile spec on XRI usage. The XDI dictionary might take care of that, but you probably don't want to introduce a dependency of XRI on XDI (which depends on XRI). The XDI dictionary could define a mechanism for publishing certain portions of it's content as an XRI pattern profile (or whatever you call it). Bill Barnhill From: John Bradley
Sent: Wed 10/15/2008 1:15 PM
To: Nika Jones
Cc: OASIS XRI TC
Subject: Re: [xri] Question on Tags and Cross References =nika+contact is a proposed XRI 3.0 direct concatenation The proper 2.0 syntax would be =nika/(+contact) I am guessing that you intend +contact to be in the XRI path and not a authority sub segment? On 15-Oct-08, at 10:04 AM, Nika Jones wrote:
Is there any difference between:
=nika+contact and =nika(+contact)
It seems I've seen the two in the wild... and I'm wondering if there is a difference or not?
Nika
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|