xdi message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 2011-06-30
- From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>
- To: OASIS - XDI TC <xdi@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:54:24 -0700
Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XDI TC at:
Date: Thursday, 30 June 2011 USA
Time: 1:00PM - 2:00PM Pacific Time (20:00-21:30 UTC)
ATTENDING
Giovanni Bartolomeo
Joseph Boyle
Mike Schwartz
Drummond Reed
Bill Barnhill
GUESTS
Henrik Sandell
THE IDEARPAD LINK FOR TODAY IS:
1) UPDATE ON OPENXDI PROGRESS
Mike
gave an update that OpenXDI is planning to put out the 0.0 release this
week. The only item that will be missing that was planned for this
release will be link contracts. The plan will be to include
authentication and authorization with link contracts in 0.1 next week.
2) PREPARATIONS FOR XDI 1.0 SPEC RELEASE
We
discussed two items that will be important to deliver along with the
XDI 1.0 specs. The first is the XRI 3.0 specifications. Drummond
explained that the XRI TC's stance has been that the XRI 3.0 Working
Draft is stable and is ready to move forward, they are only waiting for
the XDI 1.0 specs to be ready, as many of the best XRI examples will be
from XDI 1.0.
The second is a comparison between XDI and RDF. Giovanni pointed out that there are still at least two open issues:
- The use of $is for both equivalence and inverse statements -- will this be compatible with RDF?
- The current proposal for $is synonym statements between separate nodes - is this approach fully compatible with RDF?
Giovanni feels that it is important for these issues to be considered prior to finalizing our 1.0 specs.
We
discussed the advantages of having a clearly mapped relationship
between XDI and RDF. Mike asked how important compability is if XDI is
solving the problems we are currently addressing (such as portable
authorization with link contracts). Giovanni pointed out the size of the
RDF Linked Data project (with over 20 billion RDF triples).
Bill
brought the perspective that there are many use cases for how XDI can
and may be used beyond the personal data sharing use cases in which some
TC members have a strong interest. For example Bill feels there is a
significant market in using XDI for data analysis where OWL is not well
suited.
Giovanni
wants to make sure the XDI TC doesn't reproduce the problem that the
XRI TC had, which was to push a specification to an OASIS Standard vote
that did not have buy-in from the W3C, and thus resulted in being the
first OASIS Standard in history to fail at an OASIS Standard vote.
Giovanni noted that this lesson proved valuable in the end, and Drummond
strongly agreed - the XRI 3.0 spec is much the better for it.
Drummond
suggested that to finally solve these longstanding questions about RDF
compatability will take a renewed deep-dive focus on these issues and
proposals for innovative solutions that provide RDF compability without
constraining the unique capabilities of the XDI graph model.
3) JIRA ISSUE TRACKING
Bill pointed out that we haven't been using Jira to track issues yet even though we are now set up for it.
#
BILL will contact Robin Cover to set up a tutorial telecon so we can
get everyone in the TC up to speed on using Jira to do issues
management.
# DRUMMOND will put Jira issues review at the start of each telecon agenda.
4) MOVING FROM METAGRAPH SYMBOLS TO METAGRAPH WORDS
See Drummond's email to the list and subsequent discussion:
Drummond
summarized last week's discussion, and said that is really becomes an
aesthetic decision by the TC, since $ ==>$is, * ==> $has, and !
==> $a are functionality identical.
Bill
said that he is in favor of moving back to metagraph words for these
symbols, but feels we should have separate $words for equivalence and
inversion.
Giovanni
pointed out that even though RDF does not have an algorithmic way to
express inversion, Linked Data does suggest that nodes that are linked
also include the inverse link so that you can discover the relationship
in both directions.
Note that by itself, adopting a separate $word for inversion is not a solution to the RDF incompability issue.
# ALL - Send your stack-ranked choice for a new $word for asserting inversion as an email to the list before next week's call.
5) LINK CONTRACT PROCESSING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Drummond sent an email to the list about this topic:
He
explained that it is a high-priority discussion to support the
implementation of link contracts at the OpenXDI Project. See also the
last link contract example patterns in:
Drummond
ran through the login in the email that it can save enormous processing
load on XDI servers everywhere if the XDI protocol if:
- Every request is limited to data covered by a single link contract
- The request MUST include a reference to the governing link contract.
There
was consensus that these requirements made sense. Thus the next step is
to arrive at consensus on the format of this reference in an XDI
message.
# BILL will add an issue in Jira to cover this as an open issue.
6) NEXT CALL
The next call is next week at the regular time.
------------
ONGOING ISSUES LIST
Each of these is a candidate for the agenda for future calls.
* DO WE NEED SEPARATE METAGRAPH WORDS FOR EQUIVALENCE AND INVERSION? (added 2011-06-30 - Giovanni)
This is an open issue because does not have a direct corallary in RDF.
* SYNONYM HANDLING (added 2011-06-30 - Giovanni)
This remains an open issue because it raises challenges with compatibility with RDF.
* TRANSACTIONAL INTEGRITY FOR XDI (added 2011-03-24)
Since
versioning, as one example, involves multiple transactions that must
be commited as a group, we will need to address transactional
integrity. Specifically, we need to define how this will be handled at
the protocol level, vs. the implementation level.
* PROPOSED CONSTRUCTS/OPERATORS FOR XDI
Discuss the following wiki page originally posted by Giovanni:
* DICTIONARY STRUCTURE
Mike would like an example of the PDX dictionary as soon as we can do it.
* EQUIVALENCE SEMANTICS
Close on whether we need an additional $ word that is the equivalent
of Higgins Personal Data Model (PDM) semantics of h:correlation,
which is not as strong as $is.
* COOL URIS
Continue previous discussion about the use of standard RDF URIs in XDI:
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]