Re: [xri] RE: Single delegation character

[Fen Labalme <fen@idcommons.org>]

Yes, I agree that @idcommons/fen and @idcommons*fen could be defined to 
be equivalent, but we have a real reason that we want then to be 
different.  The ability to explicitly state that @idcommons*fen is an 
authority delegated to fen and @idcommons/fen is stuff @idcommons knows 
about fen enables a useful differentiation.

This still leaves the door open for some communities to define that 
e.g., @epok/loren defines an authority loren delegated by epok, but 
that's a choice up to the community.  I'd rather not make it in the syntax.

Fen

Loren West wrote:
> Actually, @idcommons/fen is anything @idcommons wants it to 
> be - including a delegation to a different endpoint that
> fen has control over.
> 
> It could work the same as @idcommons*fen.  I believe a user 
> given this option will choose it over bang or splat, and
> it would be a shame if you're conducting a survey to leave
> it out.
> 
> The XRI specification says nothing about what @idcommons/fen
> means, and very little about what @idcommons*fen means
> other than it's a delegated means of obtaining an endpoint.
> 
> It specifically excludes the concept of identity, or what
> one identity knows about another identity, or who owns what,
> or where control lies. 
> 
> =Loren
> @idcommons*Loren
> @idcommons/Loren
> 
> The above examples may point to 3 different places, or to
> the same place.  There isn't any expression that I have
> control of any of these places.
> 
> I believe that as soon as you express that information within
> an identifier you get yourself into trouble.  It's complex
> information, and changes at a different rate than the
> identifier (which means it de-stabilizes the identifier
> when it changes).
> 
> It's meta-data about the resource pointed to by the
> identifier, and outside the scope of this TC.
> 
> =Loren
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] 
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:17 PM
> To: Loren West
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> 
> 
> Loren West wrote:
> 
>>Fen - while you're at it, you should try asking if they prefer
>>@idcommons/fen to either of the above.  That works regardless
>>of the change to the spec (if any).
> 
> 
> No, Loren - it doesn't work.  Unless we make / the delegation character 
> ( which I think would be a very bad idea).  @idcommons/fen is what 
> idcommons authority knows about fen, as opposed to @idcommons!fen in 
> which idcommons delegates to the fen authority, which is what we want.
> 
> 
>>I prefer bang over splat, and admit to printing a "bang name"
>>on my business card in the past.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I had one, too.  1982 or so.  I kinda like bang, too, but I'm a 
> geek.  I'm looking forward to this weekend (survey) to kind out what 
> normal people think.
> 
> =Fen
>