RE: [xri] GCS Characters

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

While I appreciate Victor's suggestion (even though it does make my head
explode ;-), what it doesn't take into account is the policy differences
between = and @. The former represents a personal authority (where the data
subject is an individual) and the latter an organizational authority (where
the data subject is an organization). This is a vital difference from many
standpoints, particularly with respect to global privacy laws (which differ
markedly in the EU and Japan from the United States). It is also a
significant difference from trademark law and property law.

As an example, XDI.org has implemented XRI 2.0 registries that implement
such policies for registration of = and @ identifiers -- policies that took
many months to develop.

	
http://gss.xdi.org/moin.cgi/FrontPage?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=gss-v1
.0.pdf

Lastly, in my work on data sharing implementations based on XRI and XDI, the
ability to distinguish between data subject to personal authority and data
subject to organizational authority has proven critical. One motivation for
the GCS Delimiter proposal is to make this easy for any authority to declare
than any data belongs in one space or another via the use of both = and @ as
delimiters. Any URI from anyone can be "cast" as representing personal data
or organizational data using the = and @ GCS characters:

	...=(http://example.com/data/uri)...
	...@(http://example.com/data/uri)...

=Drummond 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:01 AM
> To: Victor Grey; John Bradley
> Cc: Chasen, Les; Drummond Reed; OASIS XRI TC; David Orchard
> Subject: RE: [xri] GCS Characters
> 
> Then 1id.com might have to refund Boeing's purchase of @boeing ;-)
> 
> I agree with Victor. If there is a reason for two (= and @), then there
> is a reason for more than just two (even though we may not yet have
> discovered the reason). And I've always believed that the difference
> between individuala and organizations may be difficult to recognize, and
> therefore difficult to enforce. When an individual acquires the
> "=example" XRI, they also acquire the rights to administer the
> "=example" namespace. So if they register an organization in their
> namespace, "=example*orgname" then that's an identifier for an
> organization under the = space.
> 
> 
> Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
> Associate Technical Fellow
> Information Security Technical Controls
> (206) 679-5933
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victor Grey [mailto:victor@idcommons.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 10:23 AM
> To: John Bradley
> Cc: Chasen, Les; Drummond Reed; OASIS XRI TC; David Orchard
> Subject: Re: [xri] GCS Characters
> 
> The confusion with email addresses, social, technical or otherwise, is
> not the only problematic aspect of the @ GCS character.
> XMPP addresses take the form of username@host/optional/path. The
> username part (known as a JID or Jabber Identifier) has only a very few
> disallowed characters, including whitespace and control chars and : / "
> ' and of course @.
> 
> The = and @ GCS characters both denote a reassignable identifier for an
> entity, as opposed to + and $ which identify terms.
> @ and = also serve as configurable aliases for an XRD discovery function
> $f(x), for example $dns(xri.net).
> 
> If we didn't have to deal with @, we could define a very simple and
> expandable set of transformations for XRD discovery:
> Given an abstract ID =drummond with $f(x) configured as $dns (xri.net),
> here are some possible discovery transformations:
> https		https://xri.net/=drummond
> http		http://xri.net/=drummond
> xmpp		=drummond@xri.net
> mailto	=drummond@xri.net (I think there is an attractive case for
an
> XRI aware mailserver that can resolve the XRI and make service
> selections based on the XRD and x-headers.)
> 
> Other as yet to be invented communication protocols could all be
> accommodated with this simple and very abstract spec. We shouldn't let
> the current kerfluffle with the W3C derail us into thinking that http is
> the whole universe of possibility.
> 
> Since @ and = behave exactly the same way, and =ids --can-- be used as
> community roots already, I've never really understood any strong
> necessity for the overloading of the entity identifier to distinguish
> individuals from collections of individuals, and the disregard of the
> fact that there could be other kinds of entities besides those two.
> 
> So at the risk of making everyone's head explode, I'm proposing that we
> deprecate the @ GCS character in XRI 3, and make = the single GCS
> character that denotes a reassignable identifier for any kind of entity.
> An entity would be defined as anything that can have an XRD.
> 
> =vg
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php