RE: [xri] Potential breakthrough

["Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>]

I also found this confusing. Based on Drummon'd first e-mail of this
thread, I reached a conclusion similar to Wil's.  


Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing Security Infrastructure
(206) 679-5933

-----Original Message-----
From: Tan, William [mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:34 AM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] Potential breakthrough


> I agree that not having the sticky star rules does simplify things a 
> lot. In effect, we're kind of back to compact syntax, which means that

> a global-xref is a two-subseg-XRI-where-first-subseg-is-GCS construct.
>
> [=Drummond] Just to clarify, it's a "global-xref is 
> n-subseg-XRI-where-first-subseg-is-GCS construct".
>   

How so? Without sticky stars and bangs, wouldn't the global-xref in
@foo+bar*baz be just "+bar"?

A related question which I don't think was answered: do we support
relative subsegments? I.e. can you have @foo refer to @foo*bar by just
"*bar"?

If so, we wouldn't have the ability to reference a global-xref
relatively because there is no LCS (* or !) in the absolute reference,
i.e. @foo cannot refer to @foo+bar just by saying "+bar" because it
could be mistaken as an absolute reference.

=wil