Re: [xdi] XDI article for PDJ

[Michael Schwartz <mike@gluu.org>]

Just a note on the link contracts... I think the three things are:

1) What resource
2) What operation(s)
3) Under what conditions

For #3, Drummond implies that you can specify what person (or XRI), but 
this is not scalable. For example, if I want to authorize teachers at my 
school, its not scalable to maintain relational links to each teacher. 
Although we did create a shortcut $is$do if you can make a direct link to 
the person... I still think specifying the person is a special case 
shortcut for specifying a type of condition. This is why we have proposed 
the $if subtree of the link contract.

- Mike


On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, Drummond Reed wrote:

> Markus, as we discussed on the call today, congrats on an excellent
> article. I read through the whole thing and have just a few minor
> suggestions:
>
>   - In the XRI section, you say, "For example, if the XRI =alice is used
>   within XDI data, then an XDI processor can immediately tell that it refers
>   to a person (because the = symbol is used)." To be semantically precise,
>   what an XDI processor can tell from the = global context symbol is that it
>   this branch of the XDI graph is *controlled* by an individual person. In
>   other words, the =namespace is specified to be for identifiers controlled
>   by individuals, but which may represent any resource that the individual
>   assigns the resource too. So, for example, =alice in the XDI graph could be
>   a cat (i.e., the XDI "is a" statement could be =alice/$is+/+cat). So,
>   although the vast majority of =names and =numbers will identify resources
>   that are people, you can't make that assumption just on the basis of an
>   =name or =number alone.
>   - Since your example graph includes multiplicity syntax for $!(+tel),
>   you might add a line explaining that +tel is a phone number, and $! is a
>   way of expressing that this is a single canonical instance of a literal
>   phone number and not a collection of phone numbers (which would be $*(+tel)
>   ).
>   - In the XDI Messaging section, you say, "XDI messages can be sent over
>   different protocol bindings, such as HTTP, WebSockets, or SMTP." I used to
>   say the same thing, but practically speaking, I'm not sure anyone will ever
>   do a XDI SMTP binding. So you might want to make the third example XMPP,
>   since that's a protocol that's on the TC's list for a binding.
>   - In your XDI Link Contracts section, you way, "In its simplest form, a
>   link contract consists of two components: One or more sender XRIs
>   identifying the parties who are given permissions by the link contract
>   (the “assignees”); and one or more XDI operations and XDI addresses,
>   specifying what operations are allowed on what parts of a graph." I
>   summarize a link contract as always having three components, because
>   without the link contract node itself, the link contract would not have a
>   subject. So I would suggest: "In its simplest form, a link contract
>   consists of three components: the link contract XRI that uniquely
>   identifies it in the graph, one or more sender XRIs identifying the parties
>   who are given permissions by the link contract (the “assignees”); and one
>   or more XDI operations and XDI addresses, specifying what operations
>   are allowed on what parts of a graph."
>   - Given the discussion on this morning's telecon, I think the following
>   might give the wrong impression: "Some work is being done to pursue the
>   vision of a tight relationship between OpenID Connect and XDI, which means
>   that in a global, distributed ecosystem, OpenID Connect would provide
>   identity federation, and XDI would provide data federation." I would
>   suggest softening this slightly to, "Some work is being done to obtain the
>   maximum synergy between OpenID Connect and XDI. This would enable building
>   a global distributed ecosystem in which OpenID Connect could provide the
>   identity federation and XDI could provide the data federation."
>   - Lastly, in your side box text, you say, "Like its predecessor, it also
>   assumes triples as its foundation, but also includes a strong notions of
>   contextuality." I think you meant "a strong notion" (singular) or "strong
>   notions" (plural). Or, another suggestion would be to characterize it this
>   way: "Like its predecessor, it also assumes triples as its foundation, but
>   more precisely defines the definitions and relations between contexts, and
>   also clearly establishes the special roles of root nodes and literal (leaf)
>   nodes."
>
> Hope this helps - again, congrats on what is a great article.
>
> Will this article be available/publicly reference-able on the web?
>
> Thanks,
>
> =Drummond
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Markus Sabadello
> <markus.sabadello@xdi.org>wrote:
>
> > Find attached the current draft of the XDI article for the next issue of
> > the Personal Data Journal.
> >
> > If you have any suggestions, please send in the next few days.
> > Also feel free to annotate the docx file and send back to me.
> > Perhaps we could have a quick (5 min) talk about it on the Friday XDI TC
> > call.
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: xdi-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: xdi-help@lists.oasis-open.org