[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.
Hi All, I'm just trying to catch up on this thread - I've been unavailable all week until now. I think Steve is right. You can't have a top level local ref following a global ref, because it would end up being part of the global ref. Even using parens, the closest you could come would be to have a local xref containing a global ref, with a local ref following the closing paren. I don't envy Drummond for his task of providing guidelines describing when a minter should use local vs. global delimiters. I'll be amazed if he can do it (note that Drummond has amazed me more than once). -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- From: Steven Churchill <steven.churchill@xdi.org> To: 'Gabe Wachob' <gabe.wachob@amsoft.net>; xri@lists.oasis-open.org <xri@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Fri Apr 27 18:17:48 2007 Subject: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver. Gabe, Here's how the proposal would work I think: an authority that has a global xref as a synonym may have local delegation beneath it (as in node C in my diagram) but one cannot resolve "through" the global xref. That's why I say that @ootao*west*steve is not a synonym for @ootao+west*steve even though @ootao*west and @ootao+west are both synonyms. Thinking about it more, perhaps I was incorrect in my previous email: maybe the resolver doesn't need to enforce the restriction after all, because the parser's syntax tree cannot have a top-level local subsegment following a top-level global xref. Drummond, is this last statement true, or is there any way -- using parens or what have you -- to do this? ~ Steve -----Original Message----- From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:48 PM To: 'Steven Churchill'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver. Steve- Huh? Maybe because its Friday at almost 6pm, but I'm totally lost. Why does the next sub-segment have to be a global xref? -Gabe > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver. > > > (Please refer to increased-complexity-in-authority-graph.doc. This is the > same one I sent earlier.) > > So the resolver is walking across the top-level subsegments. It encounters > a > global xref, so it duly invokes the authority resolution service (of the > previous subsegment). It gets back an XRD. Now the resolver needs to > evaluate the type of the next subsegment -- if it's another global xref > then > it can continue walking. Else it has to error out. > > I would sure hate to see that type of logic in the resolution spec. > > ~ Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:33 PM > To: 'xri@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: FW: [xri] Flat structure for local delegation within global xrefs > > > I think I've managed to confused everyone (again) by sending the wrong > document. > > The attachment increased-complexity-in-authority-graph.doc summarizes my > discussion with Drummond yesterday. For one thing, I fear that we've > redefined the meaning of the term "XRI synonym". In the diagram you will > note that when adding the localID "+west", @ootao*west is (still) a > synonym > for @ootao+west (they resolve to the same XRD), but @ootao*west*steve > would > no longer be a synonym for @ootao+west*steve. > > The other attachment (increased-complexity-in-authority-graph- > flatness.doc) > talks about the flat structure for local delegation within global xrefs. > > ~ Steve > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:22 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Flat structure for local delegation within global xrefs > > (Blech.) > > Please see attached. > > ~ Steve >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]