[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] Re: XDI subjects (was Groups - XDI RDF v8 Comments-Barnhill)
|
First, let me be clear: I’m not a
big fan of using literals as subjects, and I don’t have any compelling
use cases for it (see below for the only one I’ve been thinking about). It
was Giovanni who seemed to have a reason for using literals as subjects. Second, I agree, a literal as a subject
can’t be changed or it becomes a new subject from an XDI standpoint. Now, here’s the one thing that’s
had me thinking about literals-as-subjects for a long time – take a
standard HTML link tag: Blah
blah <a href="”http://example.com/some/target”>some" literal
text here</a> blah blah If you wanted to turn this into an XDI
statement, the only logical mapping that seems to make sense is: XDI
subject = “some literal text here” XDI
predicate = $uri XDI
object = “http://example.com/some/target” In other words, were you to replace HTML
<a> tags with X3 within an HTML document, the above link would look like: Blah
blah [“some literal text here”[$uri[“http://example.com/some/target”]]]
blah blah That’s pretty cool, because now you
have a way of embedding really rich semantics into ordinary web pages and web
links. As a simple example, image being able to make the above simple link into
a compound statement, which includes: a) an alternate HTTPS URL for the target
resource, and b) a persistent XRI synonym for the resource: Blah
blah [“some literal text here”[$uri[“http://example.com/some/target”]]
[$uri$https[“https://example.com/some/target”]][$is[@!F83.62B1.44F.2813!1234]]
blah blah Net net: it’s the ability to put XDI
statements inline in ordinary HTML and other markup formats that’s the
strongest use case I’ve seen so far for being able to treat literals as
XDI subjects. =Drummond From:
markus.sabadello@gmail.com [mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Markus Sabadello
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
wrote: [renaming this thread to something more relevant] Giovanni, I agree with Markus – I can't make sense of having an
XDI document as an XDI subject. I'm not sure my point from my earlier message
came across, but I was saying that when you use XDI context syntax – the
// syntax – it does _not_
assert that the previous XDI document is the subject of an XDI statement. It
says that the previous XDI statement _contains_
another XDI statement. For example, in the following X3 Simple graph… =drummond
+email
/
=drummond
+email+home
"dsr.example@gmail.com"
+email+work
"drummond.example@cordance.net" …you can make the following "compound XDI statement":
=drummond/+email//=drummond/+email+home This compound statement does not assert an XDI document as a
subject. It asserts the following: 1) =drummond is an XDI subject 2) +email is an XDI predicate of this subject 3) The object is another XDI document 4) =drummond is an XDI subject in this contained XDI document 5) +email+home is an XDI predicate of that XDI subject 6) "dsr.example@gmail.com" is the literal value of
that XDI object If you wanted to have an entire XDI document as the subject
of an XDI statement, I think the syntax you are looking for is:
(xdi-subject/$context$xdi)/xdi-predicate/xdi-object In this XDI statement: 1) (xdi-subject/$context$xdi) is a cross reference that
uniquely identifies an XDI document:
a) xdi-subject is the XDI subject authoritative for a reference to the XDI
document
b) $context$xdi is the context type 2) xdi-predicate is the XDI predicate whose subject is the
entire previous cross-reference 3) xdi-object is whatever the XDI object is (literal, another
XDI subject, or another XDI document) **************** As for the issue of whether a literal can be an XDI subject,
my primary concern about that is how to treat it under XDI addressing rules. In
every XDI context, the XRIs must be unique. So there are two directions we
could take: 1) Allow literals to be XDI subjects, but ignore them from an
XDI addressing perspective (i.e., they would be "invisible" from an
addressing standpoint.) 2) Allow literals as XDI subjects in syntax, but for
addressing purposes, have a specified transformation into relative XRI. For
example: ["Drummond
Reed"[+email[""dsr.example@gmail.com"]]]
<==X3 with literal as non-addressable subject [%44rummond%20%52eed[+email[""dsr.example@gmail.com"]]]
<==X3 with literal as addressable XRI subject Thoughts? =Drummond From: markus.sabadello@gmail.com
[mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Markus Sabadello
On Sat,
Mar 15, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Giovanni Bartolomeo <giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it>
wrote: At 20.52 13/03/2008, Drummond Reed wrote: Giovanni, Ok, I
see; so if my understanding is correct, we have both the possibility to have a
whole XDI document as an RDF object as well as a "contained" object
("subcontext"). Thus, the original question: in these ABNF excerpts,
how could we specify that a subject can be an XDI document? E.g.
I would
allow this; especially if we'll standardize inverse predicates, we should allow
a subject to be a literal, as well as a XDI document or a xri-reference.
Yes, I
agree with this. To summarize, I would be in favour of having the same
definition for subjects and objects: pred = [ comment ] xri [
comment ] what do
you think?
From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [
mailto:giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it] From: markus.sabadello@gmail.com
[ mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Markus Sabadello |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]