Re: [External] Re: [xdi] Fwd: Agenda: XDI TC Telecon Friday 9:00 - 10:30AM PT 2012-12-14

[Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>]

Bill, thanks for the note. We missed you today as the conversation about equivalence and policy evaluation was very meaty. We're really starting to hit the XDI power curve.

In any case, I agree with you that we should try to keep the scope of any proposal as tightly defined as we can to accomplish the goal of the proposal. I think it's very hard to arbitrarily say how many normative constraints that entails -- the proposal author just has to see as the proposal develops. The good news is that we can always carve off subproposals if needed.

To take this proposal as an example, my sense is that the issue of equivalence statements in XDI must be tackled and specified as a whole. All of the "subproposals" are so closely related that I don't think they can be discussed/decided independently. But only time will tell.

In any case, see the minutes I'm about to post, since they have excellent discussion about some key issues and implications in dealing with equivalence.

=Drummond 

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Barnhill, William [USA] <barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote:

I am on client site, so will not be able to attend.   I like the new revised proposal using the $ref and $is, but I do wish our proposals were smaller in scope.  It is like we are trying to write a chapter of the document and call it a proposal.  To my mind a proposal must address no more than 6 normative constraints (MUST, MUST NOT, etc.).  Based on that each section in this proposal would be its own proposal.   This smaller proposal size means proposals can be debated quickly, and there is less likelihood of 'I agree with this section, but not that section', etc. It also means proposals are less likely to be changed once accepted.


Kind regards,
 
Bill Barnhill
Booz Allen Hamilton - Belcamp,MD
barnhill_william@bah.com
Cell: 1-443-924-0824
Desk: 1-443-861-9102

-----Original Message-----
From: xdi@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xdi@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Bartolomeo
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 6:17 AM
To: Drummond Reed; OASIS - XDI TC
Subject: [External] Re: [xdi] Fwd: Agenda: XDI TC Telecon Friday 9:00 - 10:30AM PT 2012-12-14

Not sure to be able to join in time (the new time is creating more problems than expected :( - however, just want to point out this paper you might find interesting for this discussion:

http://iswc2010.semanticweb.org/pdf/261.pdf

it definitely shows that the equivalence mining problem is not trivial at all...

Best Regards,
Giovanni

Def. Quota Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>:


>
> --- EQUIVALENCE LINKS AND $REF RESOLUTION (DRUMMOND & MARKUS)
>
>    https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/EquivalenceLinks
>
> IMPORTANT: This proposal has been updated to reflect the discussion on
> the list this week. It now proposes two different XDI verbs - $ref and
> $is - for equivalence links. See the updated proposal page for the
> full description.
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------
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, e-mail: xdi-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xdi-help@lists.oasis-open.org