[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 2011-06-30
|
Drummond,
A minor change to the bottom of item # 5
from...
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.
to...
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 discussed an approach he has previously proposed, which is that the XDI message's root subject contain a ref to the link contract under which the request is to operate, along with other items.
To clarify for the minutes, but not discussed during this meeting, a recap of that previous proposal is that the XDI message's root subject contain the following elements: requester i-name,link contract id, op type
(e.g. $get), msg i-number,destination data authority. Essentially this puts the actor, the activity verb, and the data object acted upon in the root subject.
Example: For Bill (=bill.barnhill) to get the names of entry categories at Drummond's blog (=drummond+blog) under link contract identified by Bill as =bill.barnhill$lc!42 and by Drummond as =drummond$lc!23, the msg
root subject might be:
=bill.barnhill$lc!42$do$on(=drummond+blog+categories)$get!42
# BILL will add an issue in Jira to cover the need to arrive at consensus on the format of the link contract reference in an XDI message
From: drummond.reed@gmail.com [drummond.reed@gmail.com] on behalf of Drummond Reed [drummond.reed@xdi.org]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:54 AM To: OASIS - XDI TC Subject: [xdi] Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 2011-06-30 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:
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:
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]