I agree with your analysis, i.e. square
brackets and braces aren’t available and can’t be used. The only
legal characters are in the xri-sub-delims production, and none of those are “balanced”,
like parens or brackets. I think your only option is to use some form of
cross-reference.
Dave
From: Barnhill William
[mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005
10:43 AM
To: xdi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: FW: [xdi] abbreviation
mechanism for XRI's
I did a little digging into the XRI 2.0
and IRI specs.
"[" and "]" Are
xri-gen-delims, which does mean they are currently reserved, so this would
require an XRI spec mod.
However, XRI makes no use of these chars, they're marked as
xri-gen-delims as they are reserved in IRI.
Their use within IRI is for IP literals (ie. for IPv6+).
With that in mind "[" are prob out. Perhaps "{"
"}", which are not covered under XRI or IRI. Of course then we have
the problem of readability between "{}" and "()". Brackets
would be ideal, but then XDI addresses would not be XRIs, or XRIs
would not be IRIs, neither of which are acceptable I'd think.
Another option, though somewhat ugly is
((label:oneormoresegments)) which also makes the grouping looking like a
special kind of cross-reference, which in a very loose sense it would seem to
be. The following would reference the labelled segments ((label)). This may be
the most workable as ")" is a xri-sub-delim, and it may be in line
with our current use of "(", though I'm leary of making
"("'s meaning depend on the character that follows it.
Senior Consultant (XML, Emerging
Technologies, Web Services, Java)
From:
ad@ootao.com [mailto:ad@ootao.com]
Sent: Thu 6/30/2005 12:00 PM
To: xdi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xdi] abbreviation
mechanism for XRI's
I like this a lot and will start using it in my
documents. However... Is it valid for XRI 2.0? if not I'm not going to include
support for it in the actual implementations (for now).
Dave?
Drummond?
Andy
Dale
ooTao
Phone: 877-213-7935
Fax: 877-213-7935
i-name: =Andy.Dale
http://public.xdi.org/=andy.dale
***************************************************************************
If you don't have your iName yet use this link:
http://2idi.com/registrar/index.html?referral_code=ootao
***************************************************************************
|
"Barnhill William"
<barnhill_william@bah.com>
06/30/2005 06:32 AM
|
|
To
|
<xdi@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [xdi] Dollar word proposed for data
types-$type
|
|
Ah,
ok. I thought it was $l-en. If we used hierarchy for the $l system I agree, we
should use it for this as well. Also, after thinking about it hierarchy does
make sense, though it adds more parens.
What are everyone's thoughts on a possible abbreviation mechanism for XRI's,
and on the following ideas for such an mechanism? IMHO some of the XRIs we're
using in our examples are very long, and an abbreviation scheme would be nice
for five reasons:
(1) Increased human readability (low priority)
(2) Decreased bandwidth (high priority)
(3) Streamlined XRI parsing (if you parse an abbreviated authority once, you
can cache it for rest of XRI. Implementers will do caching anyway, but an
abbreviation would make recognizing when to pull from cache easier)
(4) If we want people to be able to type XRIs or, more likely, use them as
links in a browser, then I seem to remember a 256 character limit in IE,
possibly other browsers. That limit may have been removed by now, I'm
don't know.
(5) Referencing parts of the XRI in the XRI processing
The scheme I'm thinking of would use some grouping characters not used by XRI
spec currently..[], perhaps? These would be used in a manner similar to the way
regex groups work. Where you have a repeated XDI addressing path xxx, you'd
replace the first instance with [somelabel|xxx] and further instances with
[somelabel]. For most cases this would be [1|xxx] and [1]. Another decision
would be whether or not to allow nesting.
Bill
Barnhill
Senior
Consultant (XML, Emerging Technologies, Web Services, Java)
Booz |
Allen | Hamilton
mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com
phone:+1.315.330.7386
From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 11:59 PM
To: Barnhill William
Subject: RE: [xdi] Dollar word proposed for data types-$type
Cool idea. $type is already one of our "default
dollar words" by virtue of
being one of the XDI schema elements. And at first blush this seems like a
good use of it. I also like the idea of making the fragment identifiers in
the W3C Schema Datatypes spec the default.
I also suggest we go with true hierarchy, i.e., slash. This is what we did
with $l in the XRI Metadata spec - slash delineates the instances of the
type, whereas * delegates to subtypes. For example with $l, the immediate
children (i.e., if there is no delegated *name after $l) are defined to be
two-letter language tags from (I forget the name of the RFC - see the spec
at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/11854/xri-metadata-V2.0-cd
-01.pdf). For example:
$l/en for English
$l/fr for French
So with the $type space, we would specify (in the Service Dictionary spec)
that the default child namespace under $type is the set of fragment
identifier in the W3C Schema datatypes spec.
$type/string
$type/float
Then you could extend type definition to any other namespace as follows:
$type*(=foo/mytypes)/custom.type
Sure meets the simplicity test. Thoughts?
=Drummond
-----Original Message-----
From: barnhill_william@bah.com [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:25 PM
To: xdi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xdi] Dollar word proposed for data types-$type
$type-xxx where xxx is the fragment identifier from the W3C schema datatype
or $type-yyy-xxx where yyy is the ident for a type system other than W3C
schema datatypes.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 - Release Date: 6/29/2005
|