OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xdi message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [xdi] EquivalenceLinks - XDI Wiki

I believe it's important to keep XDI literal nodes fully aligned with RDF literal nodes.

$ref and $rep (and $is) are, IMHO, not special types of nodes, but special types of relations. That's why we have special treatment for them. 

In fact, this is such a good point that I don't know why we originally decided to call them "equivalence links". To be consistent with the XDI graph model should have called them "equivalence relations".

So I just did a search-and-replace edit on the page to change "links" to "relations" (it reads wonderfully) and then renamed the page to:


Just FYI, to rename a page on the wiki requires two steps:
  1. Use the "Copy Page" function on the drop-down menu to copy the page to the new page name.
  2. Edit the old page to replace all the content with a single line:
                           #REDIRECT NewPageName


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Joseph Boyle <planetwork@josephboyle.net> wrote:
Drummond reminded me that $ref or $rep preclude not only literal but any other child nodes. This is such a strong constraint that a node originating a $ref or $rep looks to me less like other context nodes, and if anything more like literal nodes. Can we make them an additional category of nodes, on a par with context nodes and literal nodes? Better yet, can we subsume literal nodes and alias nodes (originating a $ref or $rep) under a category called value nodes.

On May 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:

Markus, I was just discussing this with Joseph and I think he's got a point that, in that proposal, we'd be better off calling them equivalence arcs than equivalence links. All arcs are a form of link, but "link" has a lot of Web semantics, whereas "arc" is pretty much just a standard graph concept.

What do you think?


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@gmail.com> wrote:
I would say "arc" and more specifically "relational arc" are low level terms in the graph model. We can always use these terms. An "equivalence link" is a relational arc that expresses equivalence. I don't think we're using just the term "link" by itself.


On Friday, May 3, 2013, Joseph Boyle <planetwork@josephboyle.net> wrote:
> When should we say "link" vs. saying "arc" or "relational arc"?
> https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/EquivalenceLinks?highlight=%28%5CbCategoryProposal%5Cb%29
> Sent from my iPhone
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Project Danube: http://projectdanube.org
Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium: http://personaldataecosystem.org/

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]