[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Difference between global and local subsegments (What gives them the right?!?!)
While I agree with the structural points
Marty makes here, per my last message I’m not sure I agree with the final
conclusion because it implies that XRI resolution asserts more than it does. Let me put it this way. When you resolve =marty,
you get back an XRDS from the = registry for the registrant who registered the typeless-literal
“marty”. If you trust that this registrant is THE Marty Schleiff
from Boeing that you know, then you can trust that these are his service
endpoints and other metadata. If you next queried =marty for *reputation,
you would be getting back an XRDS from =marty with his metadata describing the
resource that HE calls by the local reassignable identifier “reputation”.
Note that this may be different than querying =marty for +reputation, because
when you query =marty for +reputation, you are asking him for metadata describing
“the resource globally identified by public consensus using the reassignable
identifier ‘reputation’”. In either case, you are getting the answer
directly from =marty, and that’s where the trust relationship lies. Now, move
all this in the context of @example. Per my last message, if you query @example
for =marty, you are trusting @example to give you it metadata describing
=marty. This may be different than the metadata you get back from the =
registry for “marty”. Correpondingly, if you query @example for
=marty*reputation, you MIGHT get back the same XRDS as if you asked =marty to
resolve *reputation directly, but you also might not. You are simply getting
back the metadata that @example decides to give you for the resource
represented by =marty*reputation. You have to decide if you trust @example for
this info. However I agree with Marty that @example should
provide an answer to =marty*reputation only if =marty has a resource
=marty*reputation. If @example wants to make their own assertion about the
reputation of =marty, @example should use @example=marty+reputation. =Drummond From: Schleiff, Marty
[mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] The one way you can't use is
"@example=marty*reputation". Instead you could use any of the
following, or anything that does not encroach on the =marty namespace: @example*marty*reputation @example=marty+reputation @example*(=marty)*reputation All of these examples also make it more
clear that it's @example's opinion of the reputation, which is I think
what Bill is asking for. Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com;
CISSP From: Barnhill,
William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] "If anybody other than me says there
exists a resource labeled "=marty*reputation", then they are
encroaching on my namespace. " I'd agree that only you can say whether or
not the resource exists. But anyone can make statements about that resource,
implying that it may exist. For example if you and I have FOAF files I can say
I work with you, which implies you work with me, so I've made a statement about
you as resource. I can go to your FOAF to determine if you agree with me
or not. I'm open to other methods of making
statements about =marty, but feel that statements about marty..ie
@example*marty*reputation are not the same as @example=marty*reputation.
Would perhaps a better way of saying it be @example=Marty+reputation? -- From: Schleiff,
Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] Hi Bill (& All), I own "=marty", and I'm the ONLY
authority to determine whether or not there is a resource labeled
"=marty*reputation". I am indeed the final and sole arbiter of any
identifier under the "=marty" namespace (with the minor exception
that xrefs under =marty must honor the sole abitership of the authority within
the xref). If anybody other than me says there exists
a resource labeled "=marty*reputation", then they are encroaching on
my namespace. Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
From: Barnhill,
William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] Marty, It seems that @example!(=marty*favorite-whore) is saying that
"According to @example, there exists a resource which can be labeled
the favorite-whore of =marty). Regardless of validity of the statement,
isn't @example allowed to say that? Disregarding slander laws atm, btw. If
you say they aren't then that disallows all business models revolving around
brokered trust, because it would means that =marty is the final and
possibly sole arbiter of =marty*reputation, which doesn't make sense to me.
I'll think about it more though, as this is just an off the cuff response. Bill -- From: Schleiff,
Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] Hi All, I tweaked the subject line of this
message, because it's a little different aspect of the discussion. Because the
following examples are meant to be offensive, I'll use "=marty"
instead of anyone else's i-name, but please mentally replace "=marty"
with your own i-name and see how it makes you feel. I don't have a mistress, I don't have a
favorite whore, and I've never beat my wife. As the authority for identifiers
under "=marty", I have not defined any of the following:
Therefore, I submit that @example MUST NOT
generate the following XRIs, because it implies that the previous XRIs actually
exist:
@example could indeed generate the
following XRIs, which would just be lies:
I also wonder if resolution provides a way
for an authority to refute the existence of an XRI. For example, when someone
resolves"@example=marty*mistress", perhaps they might also wish to
directly resolve "=marty*mistress" to determine how
"@example" reflects/alters/fabricates the resolution of
"=marty*mistress". As owner of "=marty", I'd like to be
able to refute the existence of identifiers under "=marty". Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
From: Drummond
Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] Steve, Marty, Bill, et al: It’s Sunday night, and after
thinking about Steve’s observation over the last few days, I’ve
come to a greater appreciation of the difference between global and local
subsegments in an XRI authority segment. (Note that by “global
subsegment” I mean the global-literal and global-xref rules on http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/XriAbnf2dot1,
and by “local subsegment” I mean the local-literal and local-xref
rules on that page.) First, in XRI 2.0, an XRI authority
segment consisted of only one global subsegment. It could contain any number of
local subsegments inside it (and those could be either local-literals or local-xrefs),
but it could not contain another global subsegment. In the proposed XRI 2.1 syntax, an XRI
authority segment can contain more than one global subsegment. So what Steve noticed is that while the
XRI resolution rules are the same for both 2.0 and 2.1, i.e., that a resolver
just “walks the tree” of top-level subsegments in an XRI authority
segment to resolve it, that tree of subsegments has one important structural
difference: once you hit the first global-xref, every other top-level subsegment
must be a global-xref. In other words, think of the pattern this
way: 1) XRI authority segments in XRI 2.0 (with
the exception of cross-reference root authorities):
GCS-char
local local
local …
/ 2) XRI authority segments in XRI 2.1:
GCS-char
local local
local …
global global global
… / I think this makes it easier to see that
when you “switch over” from resolving local subsegments to resolving
global subsegments, each global subsegment is relative to the previous one just
like each local subsegment is relative to the previous one. Secondly, when you apply that to
Steve’s example – of resolving @ootao*west*steve and
@ootao+west*steve, it’s true that the first one parses into four
top-level subsegments…
@
ootao
*west
*steve …and the second one into
three…
@
ootao
+west*steve However, if the policy of @ootao is that
*west and +west are synonyms, then @ootao*west can delegate to *steve and the
same delegation can be recognized for @ootao+west*steve. Here’s the flow: @ootao*west*steve 1) Resolver queries @ for ootao 2) @ responds for ootao 3) Resolver queries @ootao for *west 4) @ootao responds for @ootao*west 5) Resolver queries @ootao*west for *steve 6) @ootao*west responds for
@ootao*west*steve @ootao+west*steve 1) Resolver queries @ for ootao 2) @ responds for ootao 3) Resolver queries @ootao for +west*steve 4) @ootao queries @ootao+west for *steve 5) @ootao+west responds for
@ootao+west*steve 6) @ootao responds @ootao+west*steve Notice that it takes the same number of
steps, for the same number of delegations, however @ootao is responsible for
answering the +west*steve response, vs. the original client resolver being
responsible for resolving it. This ability to control who will provide
the resolution response is, I believe, one of those key guidelines Marty is
looking for (and which I am indeed tasked to elucidate) as to whether an XRI
author should use local subsegments or global subsegments. =Drummond (Note: I’m headed off
early tomorrow morning for the Higgins f2f meeting in Austin, so I’ll be
offline until mid-afternoon tomorrow.) From: Steven Churchill
[mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org] > I know that Steve and I lost the
"direct concatenization" vs. "compact syntax" vote, but I'd
just > like to point out that under compact
syntax "@ootao+west" normalizes to
"@ootao*(+west)". > And if "@ootao*west"
and "@ootao+west" are declared as synonyms, then you could logically > deduce that
"@ootao*west*steve" and "@ootao*(+west)*steve" are
synonyms. I agree. I’d just like to point out
that the way that the two would be “declared as synonyms” is that
“*(+west)” would be added as a local synonym to
“*west”. ~ Steve From: Schleiff, Marty
[mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] Hi Bill & Steve (& All), I think Steve meant that EVEN IF
"@ootao*west" and "@ootao+west" are declared as synonyms,
then "@ootao*west*steve" and "@ootao+west*steve" are not
synonyms (unless they are explicitly declared as synonyms). I know that Steve and I lost the
"direct concatenization" vs. "compact syntax" vote, but I'd
just like to point out that under compact syntax
"@ootao+west" normalizes to
"@ootao*(+west)". And if "@ootao*west" and
"@ootao+west" are declared as synonyms, then you could logically deduce
that "@ootao*west*steve" and "@ootao*(+west)*steve" are
synonyms. Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
From: Barnhill,
William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] Hi all, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]