RE: [xri-editors] feedback on k - Self References

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

> ##Self-representation is also a good term, but (IMHO) so is
> self-reference. It goes like this. Normally identifier A 
> references -->
> resource (representation X). In the case of a self-reference, 
> identifier
> A references --> resource (identifier A). Which is to say, itself. In
> the context of identifiers (vs. resources), that's why I like
> self-reference a little more than self-representation.

Well, this email exchange is public record, so if someone else is confused they can find the explanation here. Maybe the language describing the concept of a self reference needs to be cleaned up (the one discussing "love", Jupiter, etc --  note that Jupiter is very much a real resource. Its not clear from the example what you mean because jupiter is most definitely a real thing -- thats where I got a little lost the first time I read it). 


> OK, that was confusing - i thought they were the same thing. 
> My question
> about =(.John.Doe) still stands, but its unrelated to self references
> then, I guess.
> 
> ## I'm not sure I remember your question about =(.John.Doe). My other
> msg. was explaining that, IMO, this was a very precise way of 
> capturing
> all the information that the identifier being registered for 
> this person
> under the = authority was a concatenation of two words. 

Precise, maybe, but it seems random.. How does a cross reference have to do with concatenation? Also, why does the first name, which is theoretically less important and not the root you would typically register your name under, come first?

> Your mail said
> that =JohnDoe, using MixedCase, did the same. I agree, so 
> both are valid
> ways of capturing the information (although I'd point out that the
> former would survive a normalization transformation while the latter
> wouldn't). But in the end, both are legal, so the issue of 
> which one to
> use seems arbitrary (at least at the level of the spec). Was that your
> question?

Well, yes, from a syntax and resolutoin POV, it is arbitrary. Maybe thats enough to punt on it for now. 

	-Gabe