RE: [xri] * and / discussion

["Loren West" <loren.west@epok.net>]

> Drummond says:
> 
> In terms of "chunking", or more technically, "segmentation", it seems like
> there are two approaches we can take.
> 
> 1) Keep the current 1.0 segmentation hierarchy, i.e., divide XRIs into
slash
> segments first, then divide slash segments into star subsegments (or star
> and colon subsegments).
> 
> 2) Or, as I'm arguing, make it even simpler by just defining two syntactic
> segment types - slash segments and star segments - and then let XRI
> applications use them as they wish. In this approach, XRI resolution would
> be one such application, and that application would define star segments
> before the first slash to be authority delegation.

I fail to see how #2 is simpler.  Everyone understands segments
and sub-segments in URIs, and that concept works well within XRIs
(and URI translated XRIs).

It's a single hierarchy model.

You're suggesting there be multiple hierarchies built into the
identifier itself - that it represents a "web" of information.

It is a novel concept, but I argue that you're trying to do too
much with the identifier.

Could you explain what's broken in XRI, and why it shouldn't be
fixed using a more familiar approach?

=Loren