OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[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]