[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] More on Special XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
For what its worth, I was trying to say basically the same thing in a phone call with some of you recently - the idea is that we don't want to design a system where I have to ask permission to talk about you. Beyond the fact that it breaks reputation systems, it also suffers from being extremely brittle - what happens if I change my mind about other people "talking about me"? What happens if I change INames? What happens if I am extremely popular and 10,000 people want to talk about me? My point is that if you want to build in a permission layer, fine, but to do it in the syntax and core resolution mechanisms seems scary to me, and fraught with many issues. -Gabe > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:29 AM > To: 'Barnhill, William'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] More on Special XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007- > 05-09 > > Bill, > > Thanks very much for posting your views. I think you make a very important > point that I haven't heard expressed by the other editors. As you sum it > up: > > "I think a data authority needs to be able to make statements about other > data authorities without their permission, otherwise any reputation or > review system goes out the window, in my opinion. There are ways around > that, but I'm not sure they'd work well." > > I think this means that you would argue that the cross-resolution proposal > that appears on > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/EqualsAtSocialVulnerability should > be > an optional feature of an XRI resolver, not a required feature. > > This is a subject I'd like to discuss further on the TC telecon tomorrow > (under #3 on the agenda I just sent out). I hope you'll be able to make > it. > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barnhill, William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:16 PM > To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] More on Special XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday > 2007-05-09 > > Unfortunately I will be unable to make the call it looks like, but I do > have some comments: > > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation : > - For $ip, how would ipv6 be represented > - In the weeds, but it would be nice if PTR syntax was supported by > $DNS. If not, then vendors can come up with a method as they need to. > - Wouldn't #11's mailto:.. Need to be in an xref? > > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/EqualsAtSocialVulnerability: > > Social Vulnerability of =/@ Concatenation: > -Rather than "Therefore the use of an =name or @name in the context of > another =name or @name implies a direct relationship between these > resources that may or may not exist in reality", I view it as "Therefore > the use of an =nameA or @nameA in the context of another =nameB or > @nameB implies that the data authority for =nameB or @nameB is making a > statement about =nameA or @nameA that may or may not be true, and may or > may not be agreed upon by the data authority for =nameA or @nameA." > > Confusion of @ Name Concatentation with Email Address Syntax: > Yes, this will be a problem. Not sure it's a technical problem though, > but one of perception. > > It sounds like options 1-8 all disallow authority A making statements > about authority B (Note I'm using 'about' not 'for'). Not sure if any of > them would allow A to make statements about B if A used the long version > of xref sytnax or not. I think when we start saying that data for which > A is an authority is governed by certain restrictions it starts sliding > the slope of special cases. I can put on my website that Mr. 1234 is an > 3-eyed sloth. Doesn't mean that he is, and if I claim that information > is true and it's not that should affect the reputation associated with > my identity. If what I say about him falls under certain guidelines it > will be actionable as libel. Either way the issue is a social or legal > one, not technical. > > I think a data authority needs to be able to make statements about other > data authorities without their permission, otherwise any reputation or > review system goes out the window, in my opinion. There are ways around > that, but I'm not sure they'd work well. > > > -- > William Barnhill Phone: (315) 491-6765 > Associate Email: barnhill_william@bah.com > Booz | Allen | Hamilton i-name: =Bill.Barnhill > "Delivering results that endure" > > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:17 AM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] More on Special XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday > 2007-05-09 > > Two new wiki pages have been posted to provide the background for the > issues to be discussed on the special XRI TC telecon Wednesday at 1PM PT > (see telecon info below): > > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation > > > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/EqualsAtSocialVulnerability > > The first one describes direct concatenation syntax, parse trees, and > resolution rules. The second one describes the social vulnerability > problem of =/@ concatenation and a slate of proposed solutions. > > Please read them over before the call if you are able. > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:46 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Special XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09 > > XRI TC Members: > > As the XRI Syntax editors try to close the last key issues remaining > before producing XRI Syntax 2.1, we will be holding a special telecon > open to all members of the TC this Wednesday at 1PM Pacific time. This > call will be in addition to our normal call on Thursdays at 10AM PT. > > We will send out an additional email with an agenda and wiki links > before the telecon, but we want to invite all TC members to put in on > their calendars. > > We will use the standard TC telecon number (thanks to NeuStar for > hosting > this): > > TO ACCESS THE AUDIO CONFERENCE: > Dial In Number: 571-434-5750 > Conference ID: 5474 > > =Drummond
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]