As promised, I just posted an update to
the Direct Concatenation wiki page with the “grammatical rules” for
cross-reference usage. See section 4 of:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation
I believe – and I know I’m
going way out on a limb here – that they will satisfy *both* Marty and Les. The reason is that they
address Marty’s concern that the rules proposed last week were
counterintuitive because they required a parenthetical cross-reference to NOT
represent a globally-identified resource, and also Les’s concern that the
difference between direct concatenation and parenthetical encapsulation must be
clean and clear.
And the very best part? They are simple
and straightforward with no funky exceptions.
Feedback gladly solicited.
=Drummond
From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:54
PM
To: 'Schleiff, Marty'; 'Markus
Sabadello'
Cc: 'Barnhill, William';
xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] More on Special
XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
I find these arguments persuasive.
I’m working this afternoon on addressing Marty’s issue of making
sure direct concatenation can be both simple from a user perspective and
conceptually simple. I’ll post something as soon as I can.
=Drummond
From: Schleiff, Marty
[mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:36
PM
To: Markus Sabadello; Drummond
Reed
Cc: Barnhill, William;
xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] More on Special
XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
Sadly, it seems to me that every time we
raise issues with a recent proposal, we get a new proposal that is even more
complex than the prior one. I agree with Markus that Cross-Resolution is too
complicated.
If we're going to change anything at all,
the focus should be on simplification. I'm not opposed to direct concatenation
if we can figure out how to make it simple (including simple from the user
perspective AND conceptually simple). I believe that every subsequent
enhancement to the original direct concatenation proposal introduces new
complexities, and even breaks concepts that were clear in earlier versions.
OpenId is looking better all the time.
It's nowhere near as rich, but it's nowhere near as complex.
Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
Associate
Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist
Computing
Security Infrastructure
(206)
679-5933
From: Markus
Sabadello [mailto:markus.sabadello@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:34
PM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: Barnhill, William;
xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xri] More on Special
XRI TC Telecon 1PM PT Wednesday 2007-05-09
Hey,
By now I also have a little bit of an opinion on this..
Since I'm still new to XRI, I see everything more from a user's perspective. I
like Direct Concatentation because it makes i-names simpler. No non-techie will
ever enter =yourname/(+contact) in any browser or other program, but
=yourname/+contact may have a chance.
As far as the Social Vulnerability is concerned, I am a bit confused by the
role of <Ref> in Cross-Resolution. <Ref> is used for external
references, i.e. to look somewhere else for a SEP if none could be found. It
tells you that two XRIs identify the same target resource. Same with
<Backref>. Now in my understanding, Cross-Resolution is intended to be
used to verify a claimed relationship between a parent and child authority,
which is something completely different. To mix these two mechanisms sounds
scary to me.
I think there should be no Cross-Resolution at all. Like Bill said, because it
should be possible on a technical level to make any statements.. And also
because of simplicity. Cross-Resolution makes things much more complicated and
people won't know when and how to use it. We already have CanonicalID
verification. That's enough. :)
On 5/10/07, Drummond
Reed <
drummond.reed@cordance.net > wrote:
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