Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 1-2PM PT 2009-12-03

[Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>]

Title: Trust Framework Provider Adoption Process (TFPAP) - Version 1.0.1

Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XDI TC at:

Date:  Thursday, 03 December 2009 USA
Time:  1:00PM - 2:00PM Pacific Time (21:00-22:00 UTC)

ATTENDING

Bill Barnhill
Giovanni Bartolomeo
Drummond Reed
Markus Sabadello

 

1) LINK CONTRACTS

 

Bill brought up his proposal for a more expressive link contract model to see if the rest of the TC understood and wanted to pursue it. The feedback was definitely that we should analyze it closely, however first we need to deal with the $has interpretation questions that were raised by Giovanni’s messages in this thread:

 

  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/200911/msg00006.html


2) XDI RDF BOX GRAPHING TECHNIQUE

Drummond explained that in response to Giovanni’s message, he was seeking a new way of doing XDI RDF graphs that would be more expressive than when we last experimented with it a year ago. Last night he hit on an idea for a new XDI RDF graphing technique to illustrate the nesting of $has statements. He called it “box graphs” and posted a PDF file illustrating the technique and aimed at answering the question raised by Giovanni in the discussion of link contract structure:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35421/xdi-rdf-box-graphs-v1.pdf

We talked through the examples. Bill noted that he would like see us define the algorithm for converting reified statements (cross-references) into non-reified statements consistently. For example:

 

      (=a) <==> $$/$has/+a

 

This looks promising as a way to convert XDI RDF graphs to standard RDF triple graphs if the global context symbols and $words are assigned URIs.

 

#ACTION: BILL to send an email writeup of this technique when he is ready.

 

Bill noted that besides $has interpretation, the two other syntax issues he wants to clarify are: a) $ vs. $$, and b) how do we represent variable references.

 

There was consensus that the box graph notation is promising. Giovanni asked for several clarifications and examples of more advanced notation, and also pointed out that #10 in the graph is incorrect.

 

#ACTION: DRUMMOND to do a second draft to fix errors, provide more explanation of the core ideas of the notation, and add more advanced examples.