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] Identifiers and identity (part 1)




You wrote:

> 1) I believe the XRI TC should avoid the term “identity” at all costs, and 2) I believe the XRI TC already has

> sufficient terminology that is: a) simpler, b) relies on precedents established by the W3C and IETF, and c)

> has been use by the XRI specifications for several years.


I think we have a bit of a disconnect. Nowhere did I propose adding any terminology to the spec. In fact, I did quite the opposite and proposed removing terminology that is currently being misused.


The purpose of my email was to talk about the fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying XRI resolution identity model—in particular, the failure to distinguish the fundamental notions of identifier and identity. Why would I want to point this out? Consider the latest proposal, some of the text of which I have extracted here.

Purpose: a synonym that asserts a forward directional mapping from the current identifier to a successor identifier.


To me, the above statement pretty much sums up the reasons for me writing my three part email.


I think that what you quoted from RFC 3986 is accurate.


        Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying"
        refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all
        other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished
        (e.g., by name, address, or context).  These terms should not be
        mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies
        the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case
        for some identifiers. 


“Distinguishing things” is about identity, and an “identifier” does not embody that “identity”. My point precisely.


Your failure to make this distinction is what leads to your proposed text above. You should not try to overload the notion of “mapping to an identity” with that of “mapping to an identifier”. The semantics you are looking for are the former. See part 2 of my emails.


~ Steve



From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:04 AM
To: 'Steven Churchill'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Identifiers and identity (part 1)




While I have great respect for the work you have done developing and explaining your views, and while I think you make many valid points, my opinion has not changed that: 1) I believe the XRI TC should avoid the term “identity” at all costs, and 2) I believe the XRI TC already has sufficient terminology that is: a) simpler, b) relies on precedents established by the W3C and IETF, and c) has been use by the XRI specifications for several years.


To be precise, I believe everything we need is embodied in the following statements:


1) A resource identifier identifies a resource (RFC 3986 dating back to RFC 2389).


2) Resource identifiers are assigned to resources by identifier authorities (XRI 1.0).


3) A resource identifier (if resolvable) resolves to a descriptor of the resource containing metadata describing the resource (XRI 1.0).


4) Two resource identifiers are synonyms if they are not character-by-character equivalent but they identify the same resource (XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 01).


5) The metadata in a resource descriptor may include synonyms for the resource (XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 01).


6) If two synonyms identifying the same resource are assigned by the same identifier authority and appear in the same resource descriptor, they are verified by definition.


7) If two synonyms identifying the same resource are assigned by different identifier authorities, they can be verified through correlation of the synonyms appearing in the resource descriptors to which each of synonyms resolves.


Do you agree that this is sufficient? If not, what do you believe is either incorrect or missing?


I ask you to really stop and think about this because, regardless of how much you might prefer the vocabulary you advocate, the ultimate goal of the TC must be to try to harmonize our terminology with that of the rest of the world, particular those specifications on which we rely and build upon.


Specifically, our foundational specification, RFC 3986, uses the term “identity” only once, in the following definition of “identifier”:


      An identifier embodies the information required to distinguish
      what is being identified from all other things within its scope of
      identification.  Our use of the terms "identify" and "identifying"
      refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all
      other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished
      (e.g., by name, address, or context).  These terms should not be
      mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies
      the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case
      for some identifiers.  Nor should it be assumed that a system
      using URIs will access the resource identified: in many cases,
      URIs are used to denote resources without any intention that they
      be accessed.  Likewise, the "one" resource identified might not be
      singular in nature (e.g., a resource might be a named set or a
      mapping that varies over time).


The very reasons that RFC 3986 avoids the term “identity” are the reasons I believe the XRI TC should do the same.


Also, as regards the term “authority”, we have always been specific that an identifier authority is itself a resource. Our definition from the XRI Glossary (in XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Specification, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15377):


Authority (or Identifier Authority)

In the context of identifiers, an authority is a resource that assigns identifiers to other resources. Note that in URI syntax as defined in [URI], the “authority” production refers explicitly to the top-level authority identified by the segment beginning with “//”. Since XRI syntax supports unlimited federation, the term “authority” can technically refer to an identifier authority at any level. However, in the “xri-authority” and “iauthority” productions (section 2.2.1), it explicitly refers to the top-level identifier authority. See also “IRI Authority” and “XRI Authority” In the context of identifier resolution, an authority is a resource (typically a server) that responds to resolution requests from another resource (typically a client). From this perspective, each sub-segment in the authority segment of an XRI identifies a separate authority.


So an authority is a resource that is responsible for assigning identifiers for other resources. This fits very well with the RFC 3986 definition of “resource”:


      This specification does not limit the scope of what might be a
      resource; rather, the term "resource" is used in a general sense
      for whatever might be identified by a URI.  Familiar examples
      include an electronic document, an image, a source of information
      with a consistent purpose (e.g., "today's weather report for Los
      Angeles"), a service (e.g., an HTTP-to-SMS gateway), and a
      collection of other resources.  A resource is not necessarily
      accessible via the Internet; e.g., human beings, corporations, and
      bound books in a library can also be resources.  Likewise,
      abstract concepts can be resources, such as the operators and
      operands of a mathematical equation, the types of a relationship
      (e.g., "parent" or "employee"), or numeric values (e.g., zero,
      one, and infinity).

If after studying this you feel that the terms “identifier”, “identifier authority”, “resource”, “descriptor”, and “synonym”, and the seven statements above, are not sufficient for the XRI resolution spec to be very clear about its purpose, please explain to us what you think is incorrect or missing and how you recommend we can improve it.







From: Steven Churchill [mailto:steven.churchill@xdi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:52 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Identifiers and identity (part 1)




Much of the continuing delays and confusion in the XRI Resolution Specification stem from a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying identity model. Much of this arises from the failure to make the important distinction between the notions of identifier and identity.


I have not succeeded in my attempts to persuade the XRI editors in this area, nor to guide them toward a meaningful set of terminology and constructs. The TC now finds itself in the regrettable position of asking questions such as “what is an authority?”, “what is a resource?”, and “what is the relationship between an XRD and the former constructs?” I call this regrettable, because at this date so very late in the process, there is simply no excuse for this.


The bad thing is that due to this failure of understanding, the underlying model has suffered continuing attempts (in the form of misguided proposals in the TC) to undermine its foundation. The truly amazing thing is that despite these attempts, the XRI Resolution Specification today still stands strong upon the foundation of its identity model. This makes XRI resolution an elegant and exceptionally strong framework for solving many real-world problems for years to come. [Thanks to the efforts of folks such as Les Chasen for helping to preserve the integrity of the underlying model.]


Because my attempts at persuasion within the editors team have failed, I have discontinued those, and I have pretty much sat on the sidelines for the last couple months. Because the TC appears to be nearing (hopefully) the actual release of XRI Resolution 2.0 document, I have decided to pop out of the woodwork and present my thoughts on this public list. It is not my intention to further delay what has already become a grossly delayed specification. But, in all fairness, that damage has already been done, and much of that is due to the lack of understanding of which I speak above.


In this first email, I will lay out the core constructs of the identity model that underlies XRI resolution. Without this foundation, parts 2 and 3 will not make sense. In part 2, I’ll discuss the GlobalID proposal and the new proposal of EquivID, MapToID, and MapFromID, from the viewpoint of this identity model. In the third part, I’ll explain why term “synonym” in the XRI specification is misused.


Identifiers and identity


The identity model of which I speak is quite simple: identifiers have a means of associating them with some entity, where identity is the set of characteristics which distinguish one entity from another.


For example, the two identifiers “Steven Churchill” and “Steve Churchill” can be associated with the entity (the human being) who is typing out this email. My identity is the set of characteristics which distinguish one human being from another (my DNA, my “soul”). The means of associating my names to my identity might simply be a social convention where people refer to me using these names (my social identity model), or it might me a more formal means, such as that used by my bank (the bank’s identity model.)


XRI has an identity model illustrated in this example: the two identifiers =steven.churchill and @ootao*steven can be associated with the XRI authority that has the CanonicalID value of  =!C5FB.53B6.6E94.824. The identity under this model is determined by the value of the CanonicalID—this is the characteristic of the XRI authority that distinguishes it from all other XRI authorities. The means of associating the identifiers to the identity is that of XRI Resolution—or more specifically, the act of performing XRI resolution with a given set of input parameters.


For example, if you click on the first two links below, you will be using XRI resolution as the means of associating the two identifiers to an identity (an XRI authority.) You can see here that the two identifiers =steven.churchill and @ootao*steven have been associated with an XRI authority with the CanonicalID value (identity) of  =!C5FB.53B6.6E94.824. The third link is to show that, indeed, the means of association is tied to the resolution input parameters—clicking on it renders a different identity than does clicking on the second link. Same identifier, different identity.






(See the article at http://dev.inames.net/wiki/XRI_CanonicalID_Verification for more information about why this is so.)


So what?


The important thing to take away from this discussion is this “precious distinction” between identifier and identity. “=steven.churchill” and “@ootao*steven” are both identifiers. XRI resolution provides a means of associating them with an entity that we call an XRI authority. Each XRI authority has an identity which is the characteristic that separates it from all other XRI authorities—in our case, it is the value of its CanonicalID.


I have been told that this “precious distinction” does not exist. Here’s how Drummond puts it: “but a CanonicalID is itself an identifier… thus there is really not a distinction between identifier and identity.” I would advise not to allow yourself to fall prey to this thinking. The fact that the CanonicalID also happens to be used as an identifier in some contexts does not in any way alter the fact that the CanonicalID is the characteristic that distinguishes one XRI authority from another.  The model has a clear and real notion of identity and thus a clear and real distinction between identifier and identity. [I know that Drummond still strenuously disagrees with me on this fundamental precept.]


By formalizing the CanonicalID (and its verification), XRI Resolution can be said to formally support only a single identity model. This is the identity model that uses CanonicalIDs to distinguish the identity of XRI authorities. It should be stressed, however, that this identity model (where CanonicalID determines identity) is only one of a multitude of identity models allowed (although not formally supported) by XRI resolution. XRI clients need not ever care about CanonicalIDs, and conformant authority resolution services may not ever return a CanonicalID—yet this does not prevent a client from using other quite valuable and meaningful ways of associating XRI identifiers with some notion of identity.



Authorities, XRDs, Resources, Registries


Unfortunately, the XRI TC still suffers confusion regarding these concepts.


What is an XRI authority? It is the entity in the above XRI identity model to which we ascribe identity. It is the real-world entity (living in a real namespace registry) encapsulating the data for local identifiers, Refs, service endpoints, and so forth—those things that often appear as metadata in an XRD. It is the record in Les’ “global database” and the node in my hierarchical graph. (These are metaphors discussed in previous emails.) Whereas the XRI authority encapsulates the actual data, metadata about the XRI authority is described using an XRD as explained next.


What is an XRD? It is a bit of XML used to describe metadata about some “resource”. Under XRI Resolution, the XRD provides metadata describing the actual data of the XRI authority. (So I guess this makes an XRI authority a type of resource.) But an XRD is also used to describe other types of resources: consider its usage under YADIS.


So when I go to provision the data for my XRI authority that is distinguished by the CanonicalID =!C5FB.53B6.6E94.824 (that entity for which I shell out a few bucks every year) I know that my provisioning will show up as metadata in an XRD used to describe my authority under XRI resolution. (To be sure, not all my authority’s data will show up in the metadata. For example if I provision my authority with a new local identifier *steve.churchill, and if I obtain an XRD by resolving =steven.churchill, then I will not see that new local identifier, even though that is a real part of my authority’s data.)


Like failing to make the distinction between identifier and identity, the TC also commonly fails to make the clear distinction between an authority’s actual data and an XRD’s metadata.


A final important construct is what I refer to as the XRI namespace registry. Each non-leaf node in my hierarchical graph represents such a registry—a namespace for its child authorities. Les’ global database metaphor can be thought of as being partitioned into these namespace registries. For example, the = and @ namespace registries are hosted at NeuStar. The attached diagram explains the role of the namespace registry in relation to the other model constructs already presented above.



Part 2 in this series looks at recent proposals for GlobalID, EquivID, MapToID, and MapFromID from the perspective of the identity model explained above.




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]