RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics

["Dave McAlpin" <Dave.McAlpin@epok.net>]

I thought the semantics of * were still in question, but that the idea
that / was the first level separator and * (and possibly :) were
subordinate, second level separators was completely agreed. Is this
issue back open?

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loren West [mailto:loren.west@epok.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:36 AM
> To: 'Fen Labalme'; Dave McAlpin
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics
> 
> Now I'm confused.  Are you (or is anyone) suggesting we establish
> syntactic equal footing of "*" and "/" for XRIs?
> 
> You're right about most people not being confronted with these forms
> of XRI.  That's fortunate because there are as many different opinions
> on beauty as there are people on this list.
> 
> =Loren
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:43 PM
> To: Dave McAlpin
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics
> 
> 
> That's not how I read it.  Drummond seemed to conclude that
'establishing
> the
>   syntactic "equal footing" of * and / for the purpose of enabling the
> expression  of peer-to-peer linking vs. hierarchical relationships'
was
> not
> only possible but useful and desirable.
> 
> And while I agree with Victor (and everyone) that :3*:4 is ugly, the
> beauty
> is
> in the clarity of purpose.  In the persistent e-number above, it is
clear
> that
> :3 is a persistent e-number that is delegating to :4.  And as beauty
is in
> the
> eye of the beholder, we are fortunate that only in very rare
circumstances
> will people find themselves confronted with such an XRI.
> 
> Fen
> 
> 
> Dave McAlpin wrote:
> > I could be mistaken, but I thought Drummond concluded by the end of
that
> > thread that making star and slash equivalent separators wasn't
feasible,
> > and that star was always a second level separator, subordinate to
slash.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Victor Grey [mailto:victor@idcommons.org]
> > *Sent:* Thu 7/8/2004 1:17 AM
> > *To:* xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics
> >
> > Wachob, Gabe wrote:
> >  > As to whether this is an aesthetic-only change, I'll let the
initial
> >  > proponents of this proposal speak up. I think its largely
aesthetic
> >
> > I don't think anyone is claiming it's an aesthetic change. Au
> > contraire, it's somewhat uglier. In my mind the crucial point is the
> > philosophical/worldview imperative that Drummond wrote about on 6/11
> > (quoted below) - the need to highlight the distinction between a
> > hierarchical relationship and a peer relationship.
> >
> > -Victor Grey
> 
> 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
> .
>