RE: [xri-editors] Relative cross-references

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

That's a good point. Following Drummond's example you could do something
like =(.John.Doe) if you needed to separate John and Doe while still showing
that it should be understood as a single subsegment. I suppose that makes
sense, but I don't see that you'd have much chance at resolving it.

Anyway, the question at hand is what we should include in the examples
section. Right now we have 

(+table.of.contents) and
(+email.address)

It sounds like these are better expressed as

+(.table.of.contents) and
+(.email.address)

Do we want to stick with what we have, change to the +(. thing or just make
the examples simpler to avoid this area of potential confusion?

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:57 PM
To: 'Dave McAlpin'; 'Drummond Reed'; Wachob, Gabe;
xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Veizades, John; 'Marc LeMaitre'; jerry.kindall@epok.net
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Relative cross-references

Dave-

You would never have =John.Doe

You'd have =JohnDoe. 

Otherwise, you'd have to have people "register" under their first name and
then their last name. Thats clearly not right.. 

I think the real problem with the "." is that the ordering of .-separated
subsegments is strictly left to right, while the understanding we assign
words in english is often not left to right (ie the most important word may
be in the middle or the right side of a list of words). 

The + namespace is different from others, though, because there is no
registration required. I think, however, its still important to give
examples that don't make people totally ignore that the .-separation has
both a special appearance *and* (at least in the resolution) a special
*function* (namely step-by-step resolution)...

	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: 'Drummond Reed'; 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: 'Veizades, John'; 'Marc LeMaitre'; jerry.kindall@epok.net
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Relative cross-references
> 
> 
> I see. So the parens in the example xri:+(.table.of.contents) 
> are somewhat
> comparable to quotes, and have the standard cross-reference meaning of
> "understand this as a single element".
> 
> I'm still a little uncomfortable with dots as a substitute 
> for whitespace
> here, but for some reason I'm fine with that concept in the = 
> namespace.
> =John.Doe seems perfectly reasonable, partly because we're 
> used to seeing
> John.Doe in mailto URIs, but also because I expect the = 
> namespace to be
> flat and consequently I'm not tempted to read the dot as a point of
> delegation. I don't think I have the same expectation of 
> flatness in the +
> namespace, especially since we have the example of +flowers.rose.
> 
> I'm still wondering if this is unnecessarily complicated for 
> the examples
> section.
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: Dave McAlpin; Wachob, Gabe; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Veizades, John; Marc LeMaitre; jerry.kindall@epok.net
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Relative cross-references
> 
> Funny you should ask, Dave. I was just about to use a relative
> cross-reference to illustrate your answer to the last 
> question. As I've
> studied the use of XRIs, esp. in the context for XDI, the issue of
> "substituting for white space" has increased in importance.
> 
> For example, if you want to reference the concept widely known in
> English as "table of contents", you can't escape the reality 
> that it is
> identified by 3 English words. No one knows it by the term 
> "contents" or
> even "tablecontents". It is "table of contents".
> 
> If you scrunch it down to "TableOfContents" or "tableofcontents", you
> lose information. You don't actually know the original three 
> words. And,
> from a semantic mapping standpoint, you lose the absolutely critical
> information that "table of contents" is actually linked to 
> the concepts
> of "table" and "contents". 
> 
> So what's the best way to properly express this as an XRI?
> 
> 	xri:+(.table.of.contents)
> 
> In other words, a relative XRI used as a cross-reference 
> because what it
> does is link three separate concepts (table, of, and 
> contents) into one
> concept.
> 
> I've got several other use cases as well (some of which I 
> posted on the
> discussion thread when I raised the whole issue of relative
> cross-references) but I think this makes the point. I've got 
> to take off
> for a meeting and will be offline for a few hours.
> 
> =Drummond  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:32 AM
> To: 'Dave McAlpin'; Drummond Reed; 'Wachob, Gabe';
> xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: 'Veizades, John'; Marc LeMaitre; jerry.kindall@epok.net
> Subject: [xri-editors] Relative cross-references
> 
> I see we're now allowing relative cross-references. I 
> remember we talked
> about this and I guess we decided to allow them, but I'm not at all
> clear
> what they mean. Does someone have an actual use case in mind?
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/membe
rs/leave_w
orkgroup.php.




To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/members/leave_workg
roup.php.