[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xdi] Re: [External] [xdi] Multiplicity questions
Certainly I agree for globally registered inumber for the top level @ and =
However, in someone's personal graph, how do you enforce this? And putting the burden on servers to enforce sometype of permanent uniqueness goes against the best practice of data expiration.
- Mike On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Markus Sabadello wrote:
I don't think I-Numbers should ever 1. change, or 2. be reassigned, which seems to be what you're doing here.. Markus On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Barnhill, William [USA] < barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote:If you are talking ordinal #s then taking this…**** =markus$*(+email)$!1/!/(data:,aaa)**** =markus$*(+email)$!2/!/(data:,bbb)**** =markus$*(+email)$!3/!/(data:,ccc)**** Deleting the second one would give you:**** =markus$*(+email)$!1/!/(data:,aaa)**** =markus$*(+email)$!2/!/(data:,ccc)**** Then adding a new one would give you:**** =markus$*(+email)$!1/!/(data:,aaa)**** =markus$*(+email)$!2/!/(data:,ccc)**** =markus$*(+email)$!3/!/(data:,ddd)**** ** ** **** ** ** *From:* xdi@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xdi@lists.oasis-open.org] *On Behalf Of *Markus Sabadello *Sent:* Monday, July 02, 2012 1:21 PM *To:* OASIS - XDI TC *Subject:* [External] [xdi] Multiplicity questions**** ** ** Example:**** ** ** =markus$*(+email)$!1/!/(data:,aaa)**** =markus$*(+email)$!2/!/(data:,bbb)**** =markus$*(+email)$!3/!/(data:,ccc)**** ** ** I was wondering.. If you first delete let's say the $!2 value, and then add a new value, does the $!2 get recycled?**** Or does the counter always keep going up, i.e. $!4 would be issued, even if $!2 is unused?**** ** ** I think I-Numbers should not be recycled for new values, and new ones should always be issued.**** ** ** So, I think an extra statement should be introduced to remember the I-Number of the last value:**** ** ** =markus$*(+email)/$!/$!3 <-- last I-Number**** ** ** With this statement it gets much easier and more efficient for the server to add a new value of +email.**** ** ** Or perhaps it would be even better to used GUID-style I-Numbers, then the question of increasing the counter becomes obsolete.**** Or perhaps the spec should not specify this, i.e. you could either use sequential I-Numbers, or GUID-style ones, whatever you prefer.**** ** ** At XDI2 we need this for implementing link contracts and the policy context nodes, which use the multiplicity format.**** ** ** If this looks right, I'll create a Proposal page.**** ** ** Markus**** ** **
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]