RE: [Openxri-users] Thoughts about XRI aliases

Steve:

You said at the end you a message this morning:

“PS: Drummond, the confusion of this thread arises largely because we HAVEN’T formalized the authority graph model in the XRI resolution spec. Again, we are forcing the abstract model to be reversed engineered from the specification. Very bad. To answer questions such as Markus’s outside of the context of the formal XRI graph representation is mostly an exercise in confused terminology and wasted time (such as this thread.) But alas, I’ve complained about this on several occasions to no avail.”

I just want to make sure you know I agree with you 100%. When you say, “I’ve complained about this on several occasions to no avail”, I’m not sure what you mean, because you long ago convinced me that the XRI Syntax 2.1 spec SHOULD have a formal definition of the abstract syntax and graph model. (In fact I’m counting on you to edit it.)

I also agree with you that the standout features of the Draft 14 ABNF are:

1) It eliminates any difference between the abstract and concrete syntax, i.e., the abstract syntax and graph model are reflected with complete fidelity in the ABNF.

2) This means there are no normalization rules. Every XRI is what-you-see-is-what-you-get.

3) It is very simple and very regular, which has huge benefits for XRI-based applications or protocols like XDI.

Just wanted to clear that up.

=Drummond

xri message