OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xdi message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Correction. Minutes - Joint XRI and XDI TC Telecon Thursday 2007-02-02


> [So here we go. First of many minutes. Please let me know if these are too
> detailed or if I missed anyone.]
>
> Following are the minutes for the joint unofficial telecon of the XRI and
> XDI TCs at:
>
> Date:  Thursday, 2nd February January 2007 USA (Friday morning Asia)
> Time:  4:00PM - 5:30PM PT
>
> ATTENDING
>
> Gabe Wachob
> Drummond Reed
> Laurie Rae
> Steven Churchill
> Marty Schleiff
> Bill Barnhill
> Paul Biciunas
>
>
> AGENDA
>
>
> 1) PROPOSAL TO APPOINT NEW SECRETARY
>
> It was agreed that Laurie Rae will take over responsibility as the
> Secretary for both the XRI and XDI TCs. She will distribute weekly minutes
> and agendas for the unofficial joint XRI XDI TC meetings.
>
>
>
> 2) XRI FORMS AND TRANSFORMATIONS LADDER
>
> We agreed to the changes proposed by Marty and Drummond at:
>
>         http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/FormsAndTransformations
>
> 		* Action Item:The rest of the steps for XRI-Normal Form need to be
> 		completed by Marty based on the rules currently listed in the
> 		Canonical Form section of XriCd02/Xri2dot1Formats. These should
> 		also include the new rules in XriCd02/CompactSyntax.
>
>
>
> 3) XRI SYNTAX 2.1 COMPACT SYNTAX PROPOSAL
>
> There was extensive discussion about the following proposal:
>
>             http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/CompactSyntax
>
> The discussion on this item continued until 5:20, when we decided to
> review the RDFX proposal (see below).
>
> Key Points:
>
> 	* Questions were raised as to whether we should have optional syntax
> 	at all.
>
> 	* Many questions were raised around nested cross-references.
> 	Does the compact syntax mean that certain nested x-refs are not
> 	supported? The compact representation of nested x-refs seems problematic,
> 	especially wrt to trying to "uncompact" a nested x-ref.
>
> 	* Stephen raised a concern that dropping the delegation symbol is too
> 	extreme. Why not have =example*+blog? He agreed that this was a trivial
> 	issue for machine processing, but for human readers, it requires a
> 	context switch.
>
> 	* Gabe added a problems section to the wiki page. Everyone added their
> 	own concerns to the list as the meeting progressed. The detailed list is
> 	provided at the end of this document.
>
> Outcome: It was agreed that the proposal comprises two separate proposals:
> 1) a proposal about compact form 2) a proposal that compact form be
> normal.
> Further discussion is required.
>
>
> 4) XDI RDFX PROPOSAL
>
> We did not have a lot of time for this item, but extended the meeting by
> another half hour to review the proposal.
>
> Key Points:
>
> 	* Bill Barnhill sent a proposal for "X3" notation.
>
> 	* Concerns were raised that we were inventing a new syntax for RDF?
> 	It was suggested that we look into TriX and other existing
> serializations.
> 	It was argued that the addressing syntax in a certain way simplifies by
> 	using a single xri for representing any resource.
>
> 	* It was mentioned that the uris in RDF don't identify instances of that
> 	use of a predicate in a statement. That is, the identifier isn't reifying
> 	the use of the predicate.
>
> 	* It was also suggested that we use ($IsA), ($HasA) to express the
> 	relationships.
>
> 	* It was also suggested that with RDFX, you wouldn't be able to have
> 	anonymous nodes, which is something that RDF doesn't provide.
>
> 	* It was also suggested that we consider using the data URL scheme. It
> was
> 	agreed that this required further consideration.
>
> 	Action Item: Spend some time considering how the RDF Reification
> 	vocabulary might be used instead.
> 	We will also explore an RDF XML serialization of the proposed RDFX Model.
>
> 	Action Item: An updated version of the proposal will be discussed with
> 	Mark Wahl on Wednesday. The results of this discussion will be covered
> 	during the unofficial
>
>
>
> Appendix A) Problems posted to
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/CompactSyntax:
>
> 	=example*(+tag1*(+tag2)) becomes the same as =example*(+tag1)*(+tag2)
>
> 	this implies I cannot extract (+tag1*(+tag2)) as a unit, but
>
> 	=example*(+tag1*( http://foo.com)) is not the same as =example*(+tag1)*
> 	( http://foo.com)
>
> 	So, the ability to extract (+tag1*( http://foo.com)) as a unit is
> 	preserved, but I cannot extract (+tag1*(+tag2)) as a unit
>
> 	Double - xref: =example*((+tag1*(+tag2))) ? (Gabe)
>
> 		Solution proposed by Drummond to this problem: Have the delimiter
> 		apply until have the delimiter apply until you reach the next
> 		parameter
>
> 	Does =example.name*(tag1)*(tag2) become =example.name(tag1)(tag2) ?
> 	 (Marty)
>
> 		Suggestion: the better options is to use double parens.
> 		This is still under discussion.
>
> 	So the =example.name*(+foo)*(+bar) first becomes
> 	 =example.name(+foo)(+bar), and then becomes =example.name+foo+bar?
> (Bill)
>
> 	How about =example!(+foo) ? (Steve)
>
> 		Decision: You always have to keep !. Therefore, delegation
> 		characters can only be eliminated in the non-persistent case.
>
> 	if "+tag1*(+tag2)" becomes "+tag1+tag2" then "=example*(+tag1*(+tag2))"
> 	 should equal "=example*(+tag1+tag2)" and should equal
> 	"=example+tag1+tag2", so I don't think you can logically say you can't
> 	compact an xref containing another xref. (Marty)
>
> 	Issue: Shouldn't it be changed so that the outer parentheses disappear?
>
>
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]