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] Two terminology questions: "global" and "root"

I agree "root" is better than "start". 
Neither term really emphasizes the "heterarchical" structure of XDI, but we have other language to make this clear.

Right now I still like "local root" better than "outer root" or "global root", but in case I get more comfortable with your views about all roots being shared, then I think I will also like "global root" more :)

Fully agree with your last paragraph about inner graphs being "dependent" on the containing graph.


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Joseph Boyle <planetwork@josephboyle.net> wrote:
“Global” would be clear than “outer”.

In reference to Joseph's suggestion above, we adopted the term "outer graph" for these reasons:
  1. It fit naturally along with "inner graph", a term which we have used from the start.
  2. The term "local" seemed to miss the idea that the outer root is shared by all XDI graphs.
  3. We were wary of using the concept of "global" since it suggests a global root.
  4. We haven't come up with anything better. 
However what I have found in practice is that the term "outer graph" is just not intuitive the way "inner graph' is. So I agree we need a better term.

Secondly, I agree with Joseph that the term that always naturally comes to mind is "global graph" since it communicates that all XDI graph instances are part of a logical global graph.

My only reticence around "global" is #3 above—that it suggests a global root. Which brings me to question #2:

In my discussions on the list and with Markus about the graph merge issue, I have suggested that we should avoid the term "root" because it suggests that XDI architecture is hierarchical in the same way as conventional directory architecture.

However Markus pointed out that since XDI contexts are indeed hierarchical, the term "root" does make sense from that perspective. And in practice is the term that naturally comes to mind.

So here is the suggestion I want to float for feedback from all TC members:
  1. Switch from using "outer graph" to "global graph".
  2. Use the term "root" or "root node" when talking about the starting node of a global, peer, or inner graph, but emphasize the fundamental heterarchical structure of the XDI graph model, i.e., that all XDI peer graphs are peers within the XDI global graph, and every peer graph shares the same global root  node as every other peer graph.
(Note that inner graphs are different from peer graphs in one crucial way: even though an inner graph root restarts XDI addressing just like a global root or peer root, the nodes in the inner graph cannot be addressed outside of the context of the containing XDI graph. So the inner graph is "dependent" on the containing XDI graph.)

Please post your thoughts as to whether you agree or disagree with these terminology suggestions.


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