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: Re: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use case


I started off with that position.   I now think they are separate queries to the next authority server.

I think that the parenthesized statement may contain multiple subsegments is the important thing.  
Once we have a way to encapsulate multiple subsegments to be handed to an authority server it is hard to stop someone from only putting in a single subsegment. in the cross ref.

I think the simple principle is that things in parenthesis are opaque to the resolver and handed to the next authority server and things not in parenthesis are resolved left to right one subsegment at a time.

I also don't think that in ether case @cordance is being asked anything about the global =drummond if one exists.

In the first case the authority server for @cordance is being asked for a XRD for the subsegment =drummond the = is treated as part of the subsegment itself
In the second  case the authority server for @cordance is being asked for a XRD for the subsegment  *(=drummond) 

I think the latter could be taken that the authority server may look someplace else to get the XRD for the cross reference.
I think in the former case =drummond is a subsegment in its authority server.

The question is if it is just a regular subsegment is using = as a separator going to confuse people.

=drummond is just a regular subsegment with some inference by Cordance that its =drummond has something to do with the global =drummond though XRI makes no such claim other things using XRI like XDI may.

John B.

On 26-Nov-08, at 9:23 AM, Chasen, Les wrote:

Let's not complicate this with +phone. My question is does @cordance return a different xrd for =drummond and *(=drummond)? This proposal says yes. I disagree with this behavior. I think @cordance is being asked for its representation of =drummond in both cases.


From: John Bradley
To: Chasen, Les
Cc: giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it ; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Wed Nov 26 12:11:59 2008
Subject: Re: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use case

From a XRI resolution perspective I see a difference in what @cordance's authority server is asked for.

@cordance=drummond   , @cordance is asked for the XRD for =drummond
@cordance=drummond+phone   , @cordance is asked for the XRD for =drummond , @cordance=drummond is asked for the XRD for +phone
@cordance*(=drummond)   , @cordance is asked for the XRD for *(=drummond)
@cordance*(=drummond+phone)   , @cordance is asked for the XRD for *(=drummond+phone)

Parenthesis in the first segment tell the resolver to treat the contents as an opaque string and pass it to the next authority server.

The resolver Parenthesis in the path are not significant to the resolver they would be matched during service selection as they are now.

One thing we did start talking about at the F2F is what the syntax to indicate special processing on a cross reference.

An example:

Is $XRD a node that has as its authority service one that performs XRD resolution on the next subsegment.

So is a $ word in XRI resolution a node that points to a specialized authority service?

Certainly a resolver has the option of shortcutting resolution through querying the $XRD authority server if it understands the $XRD word.

Under Drummond's proposal we do have to have a theory about what + and $ in the first subsegment resolve to.

John B.

On 26-Nov-08, at 6:51 AM, Chasen, Les wrote:

Hi Giovanni -

A cross reference is putting the thing cross referenced inside the context of the xri that contained the cross reference. Terminology in this proposal has been changing but the thing that hasn't is that in both cases the outer authority is returning its xrd for the reference. That is, in the example below, cordance is returning its xrd for =drummond.


So we only support the 'inside' (or better stated container) concept. Now it may be interesting to consider a resolution process which rather than asking @cordance for =drummond we ask = for drummond. Today that does not exist.

Have a happy thanksgiving.




From: Giovanni Bartolomeo
To: Chasen, Les
Sent: Wed Nov 26 09:35:43 2008
Subject: RE: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use case

Hello Les,

First, thank you for having read the contribution! Unfortunately I'm probably not the best person which can answer your question, as I'm not an expert of XRI2.0. I limited to develop my contribution in the scope of the current proposal ( http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriThree/GcsDelimiter), which, I personally support for one specific reason: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200811/msg00043.html.

I think Drummond's reply http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/200811/msg00031.html is a good technical explanation of this, expecially the last statement: in an ordered set, you are not referencing across contexts. The context is the ordered set itself. For example, in $sig$d, the context for $d is $sig. Which I understand as follow: put an object inside a context is not exactly the same as referencing it from that context).

The core of this issue - that's my guess and not a technical explanation -  is probably that XRI2.0 did not consider the need to "put an instance of an object inside a context", but just to "cross reference" it. That is instead a fundamental capability for XDI (and for any human or machine understandable language).

I'll be happy to answer any further questions you might have on the contents of the contribution itself.

Kind Regards,

At 13.36 25/11/2008, Chasen, Les wrote:
Hi Giovanni.  I had a chance to read this.  While I like what you guys
are doing with link contracts I fail to understand why all of these
examples do not work with XRI 2.0 style cross references. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [ mailto:giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:02 PM
> To: XDI
> Subject: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use
> case
> Hello,
> some weeks ago I mentioned that I was playing a bit with the
> semantics of link contracts. Better to say, with the global cross
> references applied to the link contract use case. After the issue of
> XDI RDF model v.11, I put my thoughts in a document which you can find
> below.
> Maybe just semantic nuances, but your comments will be welcome.
> Thanks,
> Giovanni

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 25/11/2008 8.29

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