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] Thoughts in Modeling Personas in XDI


On your third thought Giovanni you said:
> A third thought is about the usage of "numbered subcontext": 
> $1 ("the first", $2 ("the second"), $3 ("the third"), ... and $ 
> (understood as "all of them") itself are OK when applied to 
> an identifier which is, by itself, a group - I would say an array 
> - i.e. an entity that naturally does contain members: 
>  =alice+sister$1,  
>  @example.baseball.team+player$2, 
>  @example.bus.company+driver$,  
>  @example.family+member$
>  ...etc. 
> However, this is less convincing when applied to identifiers 
> identifying entities which are - per se - unique, such as =alice.

My thought on this is assuming the mapping between an ordinal 
role and the meanings of "the first member", "the second member". 
I think you had it right when you said $1 ("the first", $2 ("the second"), 
$3 ("the third"). The parent context of the ordinal would define the 
meaning of the ordinal. For example $1 has different meanings in the 
contexts of a collection of members that's a bag, one that's a set, and 
one that's an ordered list, and a collection of attributes. Given that then
=alice$1 could be the first attribute defined by her persona according to
some ordering. Maybe =alice$1 is the attribute she/he feels defines them the
most. Instead maybe =alice$1 is the first (according to some ordering) of
the personas Alice uses.

What do you think about the above?

Kind regards,
Bill

Kind regards,

Bill
________________________________________
From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:50 AM
To: Drummond Reed; OASIS - XDI TC
Subject: [xdi] Thoughts in Modeling Personas in XDI

* * * IMPORTANT for XDI graph model specs: TC MEMBERS PLEASE READ * * *

Hello Drummond,

still thinking at a possible solution according to our findings of
last week's call
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201011/msg00023.html), I was
asking myself some very basic questions.

You said

> Let me first summarize the two patterns. The first one (illustrated in your
> second link above), is where an individual, say =alice, can have different
> "personas" by being placed inside different supercontexts [...]
>
> @company+salesperson=alice
> @sports.club+pitcher=alice
>
> Let me note that this concept of "persona" is most commonly referred to in
> directory systems as a "role", i.e., =alice has the +salesperson role at
> @company, and =alice has the +pitcher role at @sports.club.
>
> The second pattern is where =alice defines her own subcontexts that
> represent different personas.

Now, what is unclear to me is why these two patterns differ one from
another. Could we figure out any use case showing that a persona
(second pattern) cannot be thought at as a role of an individual in an
organization or group of members (first pattern)? I mean, from my PoV,
+work, +baseball, +home, etc. are all "contexts" in which =alice does
play a "role": she is an employer in her "work context", a player in
her "baseball (team) context" and a housewife in her "home context".

Furthermore, to be precise, +work, +baseball, +home, are not proper
instances of contexts, rather they are different "categories" of
contexts; e.g. =alice is a +driver in @example.bus.company, not in
+work; she is a +player in @example.baseball.team, not in +baseball,
she is +wife in @example.family, not in +home, etc. Finally she is
herself in her default context, which is, simply, =alice.

A third thought is about the usage of "numbered subcontext": $1 ("the
first", $2 ("the second"), $3 ("the third"), ... and $ (understood as
"all of them") itself are OK when applied to an identifier which is,
by itself, a group - I would say an array - i.e. an entity that
naturally does contain members: =alice+sister$1,
@example.baseball.team+player$2, @example.bus.company+driver$,
@example.family+member$, etc. However, this is less convincing when
applied to identifiers identifying entities which are - per se -
unique, such as =alice.

In other words, we should not have multiple =alice, rather we should
probably aim at having the very same =alice playing, as you said,
different roles in different contexts - or better - context instances.

I might miss some important points here. If this is the case, please
let me know - the ideal would be to have a use case for this - If not,
then I think that this proposal is so simply that it could even
succeed.. maybe.

Best Regards,
Giovanni

Def. Quota "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@xdi.org>:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Giovanni Bartolomeo <
> giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it> wrote:
>
>> In order to speedly proceed toward closing some issues:
>
>
>> During the call we discussed two alternatives for identifying different
>> personas, one is the currently adopted in PDX
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/PdxExample#Pattern.3ASubjectSuperset.28PersonaContext.29
>>
>> and the second is the one I proposed here:
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiOne/AddressingAndGraphModel#A.24has.24aforqualifyingcontexts
>>
>> my problem with the first option is that it causes semantic conflicts with
>> the mereological interpretation of structured identifier (see hereafter
>> reported excerpt from minutes):
>>
>>
>> XDI adds a second feature to RDF, which is the ability of XRIs to express
>>> structured identifiers reflecting the merelogical structure of the graph,
>>> i.e., aggregation.
>>>
>>
>> that's why I'm in favour of the second one. However, I've understood that
>> the first pattern has been introduced for some issues related to the XRI
>> resolution process - which I'm a bit less familiar with. Could you maybe
>> guys provide some more details on this issue?
>>
>
> Giovanni, in preparation for today's call, let me explain that I don't think
> there is any conflict between the two patterns/models, i.e., that both work,
> and both are part of the way personas can/will be modeled in XDI.
>
> Let me first summarize the two patterns. The first one (illustrated in your
> second link above), is where an individual, say =alice, can have different
> "personas" by being placed inside different supercontexts.
>
> @company=alice
> @sports.club=alice
>
> This pattern can be even more granular using tagged supercontexts.
>
> @company+salesperson=alice
> @sports.club+pitcher=alice
>
> Let me note that this concept of "persona" is most commonly referred to in
> directory systems as a "role", i.e., =alice has the +salesperson role at
> @company, and =alice has the +pitcher role at @sports.club.
>
> The second pattern is where =alice defines her own subcontexts that
> represent different personas. This one is trickier, because =alice can have
> many subcontexts, and not all those subcontexts represent personas of
> =alice. For example:
>
> =alice+tel    ==> represents the collection of Alice's telephone numbers -
> not a persona of alice
> =alice+friend      ==> represents the collection of Alice's friends - not a
> persona of alice
>
> So the question is, how can =alice define the set of personas for which she
> is the sole authority, not inside other authorities (like @company or
> @sports.club)?
>
> The pattern for doing this (illustrated in your first link above) is the
> inheritance pattern, i.e., defining subcontexts of =alice that are by
> definition instances of =alice. Following  the metagraph symbol proposal,
> this uses the superclass/subclass operator, !. It also uses the subject
> operator, $, to indicate that the subcontext is a new subject.
>
> In this pattern (illustrated using i-names instead of i-numbers for
> readability), =alice can create subcontexts that semantically assert they
> are personas because they are each subclasses of =alice. Each of these
> personas is identified as a numbered subcontext, e.g., $1, $2, $3, etc.
>
> The XDI statements that create these subcontexts are:
>
> =alice/$1/$  ==> creates =alice$1
> =alice/$2/$  ==> creates =alice$2
> =alice/$3/$  ==> creates =alice$3
>
> The XDI statements that asserts that these subcontexts are personas are:
>
> =alice/!/=alice$1
> =alice/!/=alice$2
> =alice/!/=alice$3
>
> Thus the semantics of =alice$[digits] where [digit] is a placeholder for any
> number of digits is that it represents a persona of =alice defined by
> =alice.
>
> This doesn't yet answer the question of how =alice can identicate what type
> of personas these represent, i.e., which one is her +home persona, her +work
> persona, etc. These can be done with other XDI statements:
>
> =alice/+home/=alice$1
> =alice/+work/=alice$2
> =alice/+baseball/=alice$3
>
> Talk to you shortly,
>
> =Drummond
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
Invito da parte dell'Ateneo:
Il tuo futuro e quello della Ricerca Scientifica hanno bisogno del
tuo aiuto. Dona il  5 x mille all'Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata
codice fiscale: 80213750583 http://5x1000.uniroma2.it


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


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