RE: [xri-editors] Note on normailization/comparison

["Dave McAlpin" <dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com>]

Thanks Drummond. I assumed I got that by reference to 2396, but I'll check
it when I get to the office.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:08 AM
> To: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri-editors] Note on normailization/comparison
>
>
> Dave, in re-reading my message I just realized that in the BNF we make
> the implicit assertion that "/" and "/." are equivalent, yet we don't
> mention this in the Normalization/Comparison section.
>
> I think in that section we should say something like, "All dots
> following slashes should be removed as part of normalization prior to
> comparison".
>
> What do you think?
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:40 PM
> To: Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
>
> A comment and a proposal:
>
> 1) +1 on Dave's answer: 2396 relativity (this is starting to sound like
> a physics textbook ;-) i.e., context-relativity, should be what we mean
> when we talk about a "relative XRI",. The * gcs character is a new
> concept in relativity (general relativity? ;-) in which the XRI
> following the * char is relative to a user-defined context, not to the
> current context.
>
> 2) Relative to Gabe's question: " Why would "xri:@foo" + "bar" make
> "xri:@foo/bar" ? Why not "xri:@foo.bar"? Is the insertion of the "/"
> specified in 2396?"
>
> I'll leave it to DaveM to answer about 2396, but the larger issue I want
> to point out is that XRIs offer four hiearchical path delimiters (dot,
> colon, slash-optional-dot, slash-colon) rather than the one (slash) in
> 2396.
>
> The latter two (slash-optional-dot, slash-colon) are already compatible
> with the [dot] dot slash 2396 relative path syntax. I.e. you can write
> the relative XRIs:
>
>             ./foo.bar (which is equivalent to ./.foo.bar)
>             ../foo.bar (which is equivalent to ../.foo.bar)
>             ./:foo:bar
>             ../:foo:bar
>
> So if we want relative XRIs to support all four types of relationships
> between the relative reference and the base XRI, the only two we'd need
> to add are support for dot-relative or colon-relative XRIs.
> Colon-relative is easy; it could just be
>
>             .:foo:bar
>             ..:foo:bar
>
> Dot-relative is a little tricker because it can be ambiguous with the
> dots that delimit the relative XRI. A simple solution would be to use a
> semicolon as a replacement for the leading dot in relative XRIs. So
> you'd have:
>
>             .;foo.bar
>             ..;foo.bar
>
> This approach would also work for "climbing the ladder" as far up as you
> wanted to go in the hierarchy. For example:
>
>             ../../foo             slash-parent of the slash parent of
> foo (dot or colon)
>             ..:..:foo              colon-parent of the colon parent of
> foo
>             ..;..;foo             dot-parent of the dot parent of foo
>             ../..;foo             slash-parent of the dot parent of foo
>
> and so on with any mix or match to any number of levels you want.
>
> I know it's more options that we would like, but it's as logically
> complete as the relative URI conjunction rules, and it enables
> expressing the full range of identifier relationships allowed in XRIs.
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:00 PM
> To: 'Dave McAlpin'; Wachob, Gabe; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
>
> I'd really like the 2396 interpretation to be the case. I just wanted to
> make sure.
>
> So the * gcs really is the "use default naming authority" and the
> relative xri form is really the 2396 meaning, which I interpret (like
> you) to basically mean that to get a "non-relative" xri from a relative
> XRI, you syntactically append something before the relative XRI. Where
> that "something" comes from is defined generally in 2396 (but ends up
> depending on how you got the relative XRI in the first place).
>
> Great, fine. Just needed clarification and amplification. I want this
> specifically said in the spec!
>
>     -Gabe
>
> P.S. Why would "xri:@foo" + "bar" make "xri:@foo/bar" ? Why not
> "xri:@foo.bar"? Is the insertion of the "/" specified in 2396?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:56 PM
> To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
> I understood relative in exactly the same sense as it's used in 2396. If
> you have a relative reference "bar" and a base XRI "xri:@foo", how to
> you convert the relative reference into the fully qualified XRI
> "xri:@foo/bar"? That's the question I'm attempting to answer. Is that
> not what you have in mind Gabe?
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:48 PM
> To: 'xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
>
> I still think I don't quite follow the rules w/r/t to "relative" XRIs.
>
> Is it fair to say that a relative XRI is simply one that doesn't specify
> the naming authority in which it is defined? So, for example, the way to
> "resolve" a relative XRI is simply to have a "default" name authority in
> your resolver?
>
> If so, how is this different from the * GCS
>
> I'm still concerned about our use of "relative" in this case. This is
> different from "relative" in the URI sense, I think, in that, in
> 2396land, a relative URI is relative to the context in which it is
> presented (ie an HTML file, a MIME wrapper, etc, or in a document with
> XML Base data). We mean something else by "relative" - its not relative
> to the context in which the relative XRI is presented - its relative to
> the client resolver!
>
> If this is true, I would really like to not call this "relative", or at
> least call it "client-relative" or something more specific.
>
> On the other hand, if I'm still not getting relativity, it could use
> more description (and I know its marked as being on Dave's plate to
> describe).
>
>     -Gabe
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xri-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xri-editors-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xri-editors-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>