Re: [xdi] Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 1-2PM PT 2008-12-18

[Giovanni Bartolomeo <giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it>]

Thx for the minutes! Some comments inline.

Best Regards and Happy New Year to all TC members!
Giovanni

At 09.09 30/12/2008, Drummond Reed wrote:

Giovanni pointed out that Statement 6 in the xdi-rdf-graphing-v1 document is
not consistent with the link contract example found on page 33 of the
xdi-rdf-model-v11 document:

        
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/29748/xdi-rdf-model-v11.pd
f

In that document, =drummond/$has/+friend$contract results in the XRI
=drummond+friend$contract, but it should be =drummond(+friend$contract).
Drummond agreed this should be changed in the next version.

UPDATE: In his study of the Statement 6 issue identified by Markus, Drummond
subsequently revised the proposed graph structure for compound $has
statements. This eliminates the issue identified by Markus and also removes
the inconsistency with the V11 XDI RDF Model document. V2 of the XDI RDF
Graphing document has been posted at:

To further clarify, I also propose to have

(1) =drummond+friend/$has/$contract 

instead of

(2) =drummond/$has/+friend$contract

even if they both result in 

(3) =drummond+friend$contract

statement (2) seems to me to assert that a subject +friend$contract
exists regardless the context it is intended to be into (=drummond).
Statement (1) instead put $contract in the context of =drummond+friend
and +friend in the context of =drummond. Or maybe I'm missing
something?

        
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30457/xdi-rdf-graphing-v2 .
pdf

In example #8 (equivalence +x/$is/+y) the arc connecting the two circles
is labelled with +y, does it have a particular meaning? Maybe, for
consistency's sake, it is better to maintain the graphical convention to
name the arc after the predicate. Since $is is a symmetric predicate,
what do you think about the following amendment?