Re: [xdi] Proposed resolution of attribute contextualization rule

[Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org>]

I think this is good. <+first> specializes <+name>.

The following example I think would remain unchanged:

=markus+address<+street>&/&/...

=markus+address<+country>&/&/...

I.e. +address is still an entity.

Markus

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Drummond Reed <drummond@respectnetwork.com> wrote:

A second unresolved issue from last Friday's telecon was attribute contextualization. In short, the question was which of the following was correct:

#1: =markus+first<+name>&/&/”.....”

#2: =markus<+first><+name>&/&/”.....”

On the TC call I argued for #1, because +first itself was not an attribute. However in discussing it this weekend with Markus I realized there was a much stronger argument for #2: to contextualize an attribute you MUST use only other attributes because all attributes must ultimately describe the entity they follow.

In other words, <+first> MUST be an attribute in the example above because <+name> is ultimately an attribute of =markus, not of +first.

If everyone agrees, then we just discovered another key rule of using XDI syntax that we will express in XDI Core.

=Drummond