Title: Re: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use case
Yes I did. I still fail to see a reason for the distinction. Saying that xdi requires this precision does not help me understand why the distinction is needed. I repeat, these are all examples of putting a global xri into the context of another. Why does a disinction need to be made between the methods? I guess I also wonder why multiple methods are needed but for now I'll be happy to understand why there needs to be a distinction between them.
--------------------------
http://xri.net/=les.chasen
----- Original Message -----
From: Drummond Reed <>
To: Chasen, Les; 'Giovanni Bartolomeo' <>; 'XDI' <>
Sent: Tue Nov 25 15:25:39 2008
Subject: RE: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use case
Les, did you read the first of the four XDI requirements presented in the
GCS Delimiter proposal?
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriThree/GcsDelimiter#head-4d6c59f23b76cda5ab
39226f6c6158f87716be22
In short, XDI RDF statements are extremely precise. For example, +x and (+x)
are not the same XDI subject. The first is the absolute XDI subject "+x" in
the current XDI context, and the second is a cross-reference to that XDI
subject in a different XDI context (not the current XDI context).
+x, *(+x), and !(+x) are even more different. The first is an absolute XRI
identifying an XDI subject in the current context. The second is a relative
reassignable XRI identifying an XDI subject in a different context. The
third is a relative persistent XRI identifying an XDI subject in a different
context.
XDI RDF needs the precise semantics of all of these XRIs, and as explained
on the http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriThree/GcsDelimiter page, that
depends on each XRI not requiring any form of transformation to be used in
the context of another XRI. That's the key XDI requirement for the GCS
Delimiter proposal.
=Drummond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chasen, Les [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:37 AM
> To: Giovanni Bartolomeo; XDI
> Subject: RE: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use
> case
>
> Hi Giovanni. I had a chance to read this. While I like what you guys
> are doing with link contracts I fail to understand why all of these
> examples do not work with XRI 2.0 style cross references.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:02 PM
> > To: XDI
> > Subject: [xdi] on global cross references and the link contract use
> > case
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > some weeks ago I mentioned that I was playing a bit with the
> > semantics of link contracts. Better to say, with the global cross
> > references applied to the link contract use case. After the issue of
> > XDI RDF model v.11, I put my thoughts in a document which you can find
> > below.
> > Maybe just semantic nuances, but your comments will be welcome.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Giovanni
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
