[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]