Re: [xdi] Identifying dogs and things

I think we're talking about two different types of "things". Thing 1 is your car. Thing 2 is Picasso's Guernica. This is how I see XDI addressing applying to them:

LES'S CAR

I completely agree with what you said, i.e., that "My car is an actual thing. It should be discoverable. It should be able to have relationships. It should be portable. It has persistence."

In other words, your car should be just like a person in XDI, i.e., it should have an immutable XDI address (cloud number), and then it could have one or more mutable XDI addresses (cloud names). Example:

[*]!:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e0001 <== cloud number for Les's car

=les.chasen+car*hotrod <== cloud name for Les's car

=les.chasen+car*hotrod/$ref/[*]!:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e0001 <== XDI mapping statement

[*]!:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e0001/$is+/+car <== XDI typing statement

All good. This means Les's car is a top-level XDI authority in the * (thing) space. Per our other parallel conversation about XDI authority subgraphs, a copy of the XDI authority subgraph for Les's car could sit at Les's XDI endpoint, or any other XDI endpoint that needs data about that car (such as his mechanic's).

Important note: the authority subgraph for Les's car in the [@] space is DIFFERENT THAN AND PEER TO Les's personal authority subgraph in the [=] space. So both Les and his wife and his mechanic can share access to the same authority subgraph for his car.

PICASSO'S GUERNICA

This is a highly unique global icon that will always have the same human identifier (I believe, anyway), so my only question is whether it needs a cloud number. Let's be generous and assume it does. In that case it looks just like Les's car but in a different namespace, i.e., it is identifiable in the top-level * space.

[*]!:uuid:9ce739f0-7665-11e2-bcfd-0800200c0002 <== cloud number for Picasso's Guernica

*picasso*guernica <== cloud name for Picasso's Guernica

*picasso+painting*guernica <== cloud name for Picasso's Guernica

*picasso*guernica/$ref/[*]!:uuid:9ce739f0-7665-11e2-bcfd-0800200c0002 <== XDI mapping statement

*picasso+painting*guernica/$ref/[*]!:uuid:9ce739f0-7665-11e2-bcfd-0800200c0002 <== XDI mapping statement

[*]!:uuid:9ce739f0-7665-11e2-bcfd-0800200c0002/$is+/+painting <== XDI typing statement

So now you have the full parallelism between how you identify and discover Les's car and Picasso's Guernica. But whereas Les's car would be discoverable in Les's XDI graph, Picasso's Guernica could be discoverable in a community XDI dictionary that includes entries for *names.

How's that sound?

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Chasen, Les <les.chasen@neustar.biz> wrote:

I don't understand why actual things would not have a persistent identifier. IMO things need "entity" clouds that are not really different than personal and organization clouds. I don't think a "thing" belongs in a dictionary. A dictionary contains definitions that describe a type of thing not the actual thing itself.

My car is an actual thing. It should be discoverable. It should be able to have relationships. It should be portable. It has persistence.

From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:58 AM
To: Les Chasen <les.chasen@neustar.biz>
Cc: "Chowdhury, Animesh" <Animesh.Chowdhury@neustar.biz>, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org>, OASIS - XDI TC <xdi@lists.oasis-open.org>

Subject: Re: [xdi] Identifying dogs and things

The shift in * semantics under XDI means that there is now a case for *names to be in a dictionary service for discoverability.

Interestingly, there is a direct precedence for this in Wikipedia: they have articles on both generic subjects (e.g., glaciers, hypochondria) and specific instances (Picasso's Guernica, Munch's Scream). So XDI dictionaries could contain entries for both +words and *words.

I believe, as with + words, that * words would not map to persistent identifiers, since the semantics of the word itself are what persists.

Thoughts?

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Chasen, Les <les.chasen@neustar.biz> wrote:

How are they discoverable? This implies a common community of *? What would their persistent identifier be?

From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:24 AM
To: "Chowdhury, Animesh" <Animesh.Chowdhury@neustar.biz>
Cc: Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org>, Les Chasen <les.chasen@neustar.biz>, OASIS - XDI TC <xdi@lists.oasis-open.org>

Subject: Re: [xdi] Identifying dogs and things

Animesh, you bring up a good question about well-known names that are not people and not owned by anyone.

I don't believe they belong in the = namespace as it stays very clean if = names represent natural people.

And if “Picasso’s Guernica” or “Munch’s Scream” have become generic cultural icons, they don't belong in the @ namespace because that's for legal entities that have rights in the name.

So they belong in the * namespace, which makes sense because they are both "things", i.e., *guernica and *scream.

Since both names are contextual (i.e., both need the context of the artist to make it clear what they are referring to), I'd suggest the best mapping is *picasso*guernica and *munch*scream.

In essence, * is to instances of things what + is to classes of things.

Make sense?

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Chowdhury, Animesh <Animesh.Chowdhury@neustar.biz> wrote:

Hi Drummond/Markus,

The semantics of a natural person or a legal entity is quite clear. So, there’s no confusion there. However, I do think that there are some “things” which may not be owned by anyone – thus, cannot be easily identified under an “equal” or “at” name.

For example, classic art works like “Picasso’s Guernica” or “Munch’s Scream” are not commonly seen as owned by someone. So, if one wanted to name these objects likewise , =Guernica or =scream , I think that should be allowed.

What do you think ?

Thanks,

Animesh

From:xdi@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xdi@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:42 AM
To: Markus Sabadello
Cc: Chasen, Les; OASIS - XDI TC
Subject: Re: [xdi] Identifying dogs and things

Les, per my last message, I agree with Markus. I prefer not to go into the old XRI semantics and I-Broker agreements and rather just focus with on current XDI semantics. But with these, an = identifier is used exclusively to identify a natural person. If you wanted to identify a dog, you could use:

=les.chasen*rover
=les.chasen+dog*rover

Similarly for a car:

=les.chasen*hotrod
=les.chasen+car*hotrod

But an =identifier by itself always represents a natural person (and the new XDI.org registration agreements should specify that). That's very clean, and makes the =authority branches of the XDI graph very clear.

=Drummond

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org> wrote:

But (at least under the old I-Broker system) this would be a violation of the registration agreement.

And in XDI I believe it would be inconsistent with the semantic meaning of =

Markus

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Chasen, Les <les.chasen@neustar.biz> wrote:

The question came up whether the = symbol can be

used to identify dogs or phones. Markus explained that the = symbol is strictly for natural persons. To identify the concept of a dog, +dog would be used. To assign an identifier to a specific dog, a * identifier would be used. Markus added that a registrar for XDI identifiers will typically have legal requirements to allow registration of = and @ identifiers only for purposes consistent with their semantic meanings. Animesh speculated whether it would make sense to also have a registry for * identifiers.

I could have =rover who happens to be a +dog. Couldn't i?

I could also have =les.chasen.car which happens to be a +car.

I wouldn't have to have these in the = community but i could if i wanted to.

xdi message

The question came up whether the = symbol can be