[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xdi] 2 key proposals coming out of the last TC telecon & subsequent discussions
Question about #2:Are we adopting your proposal to view XDI statements as relative to a local root, rather than absolute (that is, relative to the global outer root)?
Would inverting a contextual statement give different results with respect to the local root, or with respect to the outer root?
Is this the difference between /$is/ and /$is()/?
On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:08 AM, Drummond Reed <email@example.com> wrote:#2: INVERSE CONTEXTUAL STATEMENTSOn last Friday's TC call we discussed that going to an empty path to represent the outer root created a problem for inverse contextual statements, since the inverse contextual predicate would be come just $is, i.e., an identity equivalence statement. Markus and I explored this and decided that it did in fact work semantically if the object of the inverse contextual statement was the complete context. For example:=markus//<+name><+name>/$is/=markus<+name>However after much discussion we felt that this was a different semantic that our current inverse contextual predicate, which only requires the parent context as the object. And we decided that we still needed this semantic. Thus our conclusion was that we should to keep $is() as the inverse contextual predicate. Our logic is that the parentheses become necessary simply because they enclose the actual XDI address of the outer root (which is empty) as a cross-reference so that it can be described by the inverse predicate $is.So that means no change in our current syntax for inverse contextual predicates, e.g.:=markus//<+name><+name>/$is()/=markusPlease post if you have any further thoughts about either of these two conclusions.=Drummond