Subject: RE: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to "self-reference"
Drummond, The cross-reference example (and value proposition) you gave is very clear. I also understand - from a theoretical point of view - that self references are for referencing the identifier, not the resource. Can you help me to understand when I'd want to use a self- reference? And from a machine point of view - can the parser know that it has a cross-reference vs. a self-reference, and would a parser or resolver do something different with one or the other? Apologies in advance if I'm slower than others at getting my head around self-references. I understand the "what", it's the "why" that I'm struggling with. Thank you, =Loren > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:19 PM > To: Loren West; firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to > "self-reference" > > > Ah, Loren, good test. Since cross-references and > self-references are two > of the six key features of XRIs (along with unlimited delegation, > persistence, global context symbols, and internationalization), here's > how I'd describe and compare them. > > A cross-reference is an identifier used in the context of another > identifier. The primary usage of cross references is to allow multiple > authorities (contexts) to share the same identifier for the > same logical > resources. For example, xri:=John/(+phone.number)/(+work) and > xri:=Mary/(+phone.number)/(+work) allow both John and Mary to refer to > the same logical resource (their respective work phone numbers) using > the same identifiers. > > A self-reference is an identifier used to refer to itself. The primary > usage of self-references is to allow humans and computers to > refer to an > identifier itself rather than the resource the identifier > would normally > identify. For example, xri:foo refers to the resource with > the relative > reassignable identifier "foo", while the xri:(.foo) refers to the > identifier "foo" itself and NOT the identified resource. > > You could say that every cross-reference is also a > self-reference to the > XRI contained in the cross-reference, and you'd be right (both > syntactically and logically), but I'm not sure what > additional cognitive > value that would buy ;-) > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Loren West [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:30 PM > To: Drummond Reed; firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to > "self-reference" > > Drummond, > > Can you describe the differences between "self-reference" and > "cross-reference"? XRI syntax has these two things, the > syntactical and logical differences between them aren't > clear (at least to me). > > Thank you, > > =Loren > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:email@example.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:00 PM > > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > > Subject: [xri] Editorial change: "non-resolution" to > "self-reference" > > > > > > As we continue to prepare the final working draft (now > slated to be 09 > > after Gabe's posting of 08 today), I'd like to put to rest > a lingering > > terminology issue: the term "non-resolvable". We have found numerous > > times now that this term creates confusion because, as Gabe > says, what > > we really mean when we use it to describe an XRI is > > "not-to-be-resolved". > > > > In other words, "non-resolvable" DOESN'T mean the XRI CAN'T > > be resolved, > > it simply means in this context that the purpose of the XRI > is only to > > determine equivalence and thus it should not be dereferenced. > > > > Examples: > > > > xri:@foo > > xri:(@foo) > > > > The former is intended to be resolved to the resource identified by > > "@foo". The latter is a way of expressing that resolution is NOT > > intended, and that the XRI merely expresses "the identifier with the > > value '@foo'". > > > > We have never disagreed that this is useful, we just haven't known > > exactly what to call it. As we have written many times (and as David > > Booth illustrated in his white paper about the different > uses of URIs > > that we cited in the XRI Requirements doc), what we intend > by the term > > "non-resolution" is same thing accomplished in English language by > > putting a word in quotes, e.g., "the word "user-friendly" has become > > commonplace in computer literature". > > > > It finally hit me what this really is: a self-reference. > > Since the whole > > purpose of an identifier is to serve as a reference to a > resource, we > > need special syntax - in both human and computer languages - for the > > special case when we DON'T mean "the thing being identified", but > > instead mean "the identifier itself", i.e., a self-reference. > > > > I've already begun using this term in several documents > > describing this > > feature of XRIs and it works like a charm - simply substitute > > "self-reference" for "non-resolvability" and "self-referential" for > > "non-resolvable". It works especially well because cross-reference > > syntax is already a key feature of XRIs, and now we can list > > self-reference syntax alongside it. > > > > So the formal proposal is to make the terminology substitution above > > beginning with the 09 draft. Any objections, please post ASAP > > - silence > > will be deemed consensus. > > > > =Drummond > > > > > > 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/members/leave > _workgroup.php. > >