[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage
I tend to agree. I feel it is more important to be precise which the mathematical model provides and language does not. contact: =les sip: =les/(+phone) chat: =les/skype/chat > -----Original Message----- > From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:55 PM > To: Drummond Reed; Tan, William; Chasen, Les; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage > > I think the conciseness of the math is the type of conciseness we should > aim for. The mathmatical use of parenthesis to signify a different > precedence of operators than would be followed without the parentheses > fits pretty closely with XRI's need to express a different precedence of > delimited segments. Such conciseness helps us understand the difference > between the following XRIs expressed in Marty's preferred syntax: > > @aaa*@bbb*ccc*ddd > @aaa*(@bbb*ccc*ddd) > @aaa*(@bbb*ccc)*ddd > > Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP > Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist > Computing Security Infrastructure > (206) 679-5933 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:24 PM > To: william.tan@neustar.biz; 'Les Chasen'; Schleiff, Marty; > xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage > > Wil, > > First you asked, "Why should one be forced to refer to the xref using a > "quoted" paradigm just because it is crossing three contexts?" > > My answer is based directly on the precedent in English (Marty does not > agree with me that human language is the model we should be following > here, but I feel very strongly it is human language and not mathematics we > are modelling here). In other words, this is exactly what you need to do > in English when you need to put a word in quotes or parentheses. For > example: > > I went to Paris. > I went to "Paris". > I went to Paris (the one in Texas). > > In the second sentence, the writer needed to express "Paris" in quotes to > indicate the writer meant a different context than the normal global > context. In the third one, the writer needed to put "(the one in Texas)" > in parentheses in order to indicate that this phrase as a whole modified > the word "Paris". > > This is *precisely* the same rule defined on http://wiki.oasis- > open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation. You need to use parentheses when > you need to cross contexts that are not otherwise clearly delineated by > the six XRI context symbols. Otherwise you don't. > > Second, you said, "Also, the fact that crossing two contexts is a more > common use case than crossing three seems to me that we are just using it > as a shorthand and should consider normalization." > > I don't see how that follows. You can't "normalize" any of the three > English sentences above (i.e., take out the quotes or parens) without > losing the meaning. > > The point I was trying to make is that direct concatenation will the 95% > case in XRI usage just as it is in English -- we compose sentences by > directly concatenating words using spaces as the "subsegment delimiters" > and periods as the "segment delimiters". Putting subsegments or segments > in parentheses is the 5% exception just like it is with putting English > words/sentences in quotes or parentheses. > > So let's keep the simple case simple -- direct concatenation -- while > still enabling the complex case -- parenthetical encapsulation -- when you > really need it (for which the killer use case has IMHO always been > encapsulating URIs). > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tan, William [mailto:william.tan@neustar.biz] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 2:26 AM > To: Drummond Reed; Les Chasen; Marty Schleiff; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage > > Crossing two or three contexts doesn't seem very different conceptually. > Why should one be forced to refer to the xref using a "quoted" paradigm > just because it is crossing three contexts? > > Also, the fact that crossing two contexts is a more common use case than > crossing three seems to me that we are just using it as a shorthand and > should consider normalization. > > > > -- > http://xri.net/=wil > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net> > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:37:24 > To:"Chasen, Les" <les.chasen@neustar.biz>,"Schleiff, Marty" > <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>,<xri@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage > > Les, > > > > I know you have been saying, "if there is a grammatical difference then it > should mean that we do something different in the only client we define, > resolution". After some reflection, I no longer believe that's true. > > > > Here's my logic: the XRIs *example and !example are absolutely identical > from the standpoint of resolution. However "grammatically" they have very > different meanings - one is used for a reassignable identifier and one is > use for a persistent identifier. That's very important to XRI authors and > XRI consumers, but not to the resolution infrastructure. > > > > Therefore, the test I think we should be applying is the one Marty has > been asking for: "If there is a grammatical difference, XRI authors should > know when to use which type of cross-reference - direct or parenthetical." > > > > I believe the answer posted today on > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/DirectConcatenation is crystal > clear: > use a direct cross-reference when you are only crossing two contexts, and > use a parenthetical cross-reference when you must cross three contexts. > The first will be very common, the second will be rare - as rare as > putting English words in "quotes" or (parentheticals). > > > > The fact that we started with the rare case before we discovered the > common case is, IMHO, what has caused our deliberations to take so long. > It's not without precedent - 2.5 years ago the TC struggled for several > months over switching from dots and semicolons to stars and bangs as > subsegment delimiters. Today we take it for granted that you can use dots > in a i-name. > I know I sound like a broken record, but I believe the same will be true > for direct concatenation. > > > > I agree with you that it's great to finally be getting input from others > on the TC who have not been as close to the discussion. I also look > forward to the feedback from non-TC members that we'll be getting at the > XRI sessions we'll be holding at IIW next week. > > > > I too can hardly wait for us to close and get XRI Syntax 2.1 in > production. > I'm going to be concentrating hard tomorrow and Sunday on posting the > first editor's draft of XRI Resolution 2.0 Working Draft 11 so we can > finally get that into production. > > > > =Drummond > > > > > > ---------------- > > From: Chasen, Les [mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 PM > To: Schleiff, Marty; Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage > > > > I am not getting the grammatical difference either. We have discussed > many different grammars over the past few weeks. There was the difference > between a word in quotes and not in quotes, there was talking about "THE" > or "A" entity in the xref, there was some discussion of direct > concatenation meta data being factual real data about the entity in the > xref and in the local context being the parents opinionated view on the > xref, and now possession for direct concatenation and I'm not sure I > understand the parenthetical option. > > > > I have been saying for a long time that IMHO if there is a grammatical > difference then it should mean that we do something different in the only > client we define, resolution. If there is no significant difference and > therefore no difference in behavior then we are back to equivalence. > > > > We have also discussed a potential middle ground of allowing direct > concatenation of the two GCS characters that are currently not resolvable, > + and $. > > > > The editors have been debating this issue for some time. I think we have > posted a lot of good info to this list about the issues. I would like to > strongly encourage the other members of this list to please speak up. I > understand the wish to have a simpler syntax one that is more intuitive to > end users. I am all for it but it doesn't come about by magic. To me it > is up to the community on how we proceed. > > > > > contact: <http://xri.net/=les> =les > > sip <http://xri.net/=les/(+phone)> : =les/(+phone) > > chat: <http://xri.net/=les/skype/chat> =les/skype/chat > > > > > > > > > ---------------- > > From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:36 PM > To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage > > > > Hi Drummond (& All), > > > > I'm somewhat relieved that in both cases (without parens and with parens) > the referenced global XRI is an identifier for the target resource that > can be used independently of the parent context. So, "@bbb" ALWAYS means > the same named resource, whether it stands alone, or is in an xref with > parens like "@aaa+(@bbb)", or is referenced in direct concatenation like > "@aaa@bbb". > > > > I think the grammatical implications of each (without parents and with > parens) are insufficiently described. You've described a syntactic > difference that has no meaningful explanation. Why would someone care to > cross two contexts as opposed to crossing three contexts? You are > still searching for meaningful grammer to assign to the syntax, instead of > designing syntax to support meaningful grammar. This is backwards, akin to > deriving the abstract syntax from the concrete syntax. > > 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: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:20 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [xri] Grammatical rules for cross-reference usage > > 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: > <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: <mailto:Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com> @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. :) > > > > greetings, > Markus > > > > > > On 5/10/07, Drummond Reed < > drummond.reed@cordance.net : <mailto: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 > : <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: > <mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com> ] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:16 PM > To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > : <mailto: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: > <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 > : <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: > <mailto: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: > <mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net> ] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:17 AM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org: <mailto: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: > <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: > <mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net> ] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:46 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org: <mailto: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]