RE: [xri-editors] Relative cross-references

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@onename.com>]

Yes. Great suggestion.

=D

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 3:22 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

Our emails crossed in space, but at least I was right about
=(.John.Doe). So
it sounds like your vote is to simplify. How about if we change
(+table.of.contents) to (+index) and (+email.address) to (+email)?

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 3:19 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

Dave, as you and I discussed on the phone, the use of relative
cross-references for identifier grouping, e.g., (.table.of.contents), is
indeed very subtle. I believe the implications are very important and
far reaching, but I completely agree that this is not an introductory
topic, and thus we should avoid trying to introduce this in 1.1.2.

We will definitely need to deal with this in the Primer - I just added
it to the outline I've started (the Primer is going to be quite a job in
itself, as we all know).

By the way, xri:=John.Doe is certainly legal, but probably not what is
intended. To express the name "Johh Doe" as a relative cross-reference
would translate to:

        =(.John.Doe)

I'll follow that up further in another thread.

=Drummond

-----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/members/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_w
orkg
roup.php.