OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[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?!?!)


Title: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.

Bill,

 

A local-xref is an cross-reference (either an XRI or a URI) inside parens with a Local Context Symbol (* or !) in front of it.

 

            *(=marty)

            *(+west)

            !(@!1000)

 

A global-xref is an XRI authority segment use as a cross-reference WITHOUT being in parens, and thus not having any * or ! in front of it. Note that all global-xrefs are in fact global XRIs by themselves; they only become a global-xref when they are NOT the very start of an XRI authority segment. For example, in XRIs #1 and #2 below, “+reputation” is a global-xref. However in #3, +reputation is the first segment and +academic is a global-xref.

 

1)         =drummond+reputation

2)         @cordance+reputation

3)         +reputation+academic

 

Hope this helps,

 

=Drummond

 


From: Barnhill, William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:36 AM
To: Schleiff, Marty; Drummond Reed; Steven Churchill; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] RE: Difference between global and local subsegments (What gives them the right?!?!)

 

Fair 'nuff, that makes sense and thanks for clarifying. On one example though, I still can't use that because of the local vs. global thing, right?

 

@example*(=marty)*reputation

 

Or can I, is *(=marty) a local or a global xref? And given whether it's local or global, what would a similar example be of the other one (local vs. global, global vs. local)?

 

--
William Barnhill                        Phone: (315) 491-6765
Associate                                  Email: barnhill_william@bah.com
Booz | Allen | Hamilton             i-name: =Bill.Barnhill
"Delivering results that endure"

 

 


From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:49 PM
To: Barnhill, William; Drummond Reed; Steven Churchill; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Difference between global and local subsegments (What gives them the right?!?!)

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
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(206) 679-5933

 

 


From: Barnhill, William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:21 AM
To: Schleiff, Marty; Drummond Reed; Steven Churchill; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Difference between global and local subsegments (What gives them the right?!?!)

"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?

 

 

--
William Barnhill                        Phone: (315) 491-6765
Associate                                  Email: barnhill_william@bah.com
Booz | Allen | Hamilton             i-name: =Bill.Barnhill
"Delivering results that endure"

 

 


From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:10 PM
To: Barnhill, William; Drummond Reed; Steven Churchill; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Difference between global and local subsegments (What gives them the right?!?!)

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
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(206) 679-5933

 

 


From: Barnhill, William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:00 AM
To: Schleiff, Marty; Drummond Reed; Steven Churchill; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Difference between global and local subsegments (What gives them the right?!?!)

 

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 

--
William Barnhill                         Phone: (315) 491-6765
Associate                                   Email: barnhill_william@bah.com
Booz | Allen | Hamilton             i-name: =Bill.Barnhill
"Delivering results that endure"

 

 


From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:46 AM
To: Drummond Reed; Steven Churchill; Barnhill, William; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Difference between global and local subsegments (What gives them the right?!?!)

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:

=marty*mistress

=marty*favorite-whore

=marty*ceasedate-of-wifebeating

Therefore, I submit that @example MUST NOT generate the following XRIs, because it implies that the previous XRIs actually exist:

@example=marty*mistress

@example!(=marty*favorite-whore)

@example*(=marty*ceasedate-of-wifebeating)

@example could indeed generate the following XRIs, which would just be lies:

@example*(=marty)*mistress

@example*(=marty)!favorite-whore

@example*(=marty)*ceasedate-of-wifebeating

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
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(206) 679-5933

 

 


From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:40 PM
To: 'Steven Churchill'; Schleiff, Marty; 'Barnhill, William'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Difference between global and local subsegments (was RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.)

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]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:12 PM
To: 'Schleiff, Marty'; 'Barnhill, William'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.

 

 

> 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]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:54 PM
To: Barnhill, William; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.

 

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
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(206) 679-5933

 

 


From: Barnhill, William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:36 AM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Increased complexity in resolver.

 

Hi all,

Having just gotten back myself I also am trying to catch up.

Steve, can you explain what you mean by "even though
@ootao*west and @ootao+west are both synonyms."?

I thought the resolution sequence of subsegments to be the following after normalization:
@ootao*west => @, *ootao, *west
@ootao+west => @, *ootao, *(+west)
@ootao*(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)
@ootao(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)

Is this incorrect?

From what you said I got the idea that it's actually
@ootao*west => @, *ootao, *west
@ootao+west => @, *ootao, *west
@ootao*(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)
@ootao(+west) => @, *ootao, *(+west)

Which doesn't seem to make sense to me, so I'm betting I misunderstand.

Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Fri 4/27/2007 11:31 PM
To: steven.churchill@xdi.org; gabe.wachob@amsoft.net; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
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]