Re: [xdi] Realizations about $has statements

Giovanni, this is a fascinating suggestion, that I have been thinking about in the background all week.

Let me quickly enumerate the possibilities for just one classic scenario associated with personal data stores: a single email address with two "tags". Based on our discussion so far, here's the three basic possibilities, all of which would be fully semantically valid and consistent with each other:

#1 FULLY COLLAPSED

 

=example

            $is$a

                        +person

            +email

                        (/+home+email)

                        (/+work+email)

            +home+email

                        (/+email$1)

            +work+email

                        (/+email$1)

            +email$1

                        “”

 

#2 ALL BUT LAST SUBSEGMENT COLLAPSED

 

=example

            $is$a

                        +person

            $has

                        +home

                        +work

                        +email

=example+home

            +email

                        (=example+email/$1)

=example+work

            +email

                        (=example+email/$1)

=example+email

            $1

                        “”

 

#3 FULLY EXPANDED

 

=example

            $is$a

                        +person

            $has

                        +home+email

                        +work+email

                        +email$1

=example+home+email

            $is

                        =example+email$1

=example+work+email

            $is

                        =example+email$1

=example+email$1

            $value

                        “”

 

***********
I propose we make the task of analyzing and comparing these three options the main topic of tomorrow's telecon. Talk to you then,

=Drummond 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Giovanni Bartolomeo <> wrote:

Hello Markus and Drummond,

I would propose the following:

=example

            $is$a

                        +person

=example+email

             $1

                        ??

=example+email is the set of emails belonging to =example, $1 is the accessor for ??. It is easy to find =example+email$1 solving one by one the subsegments from left to right. And this is unambiguous, assumed that $has is left associative. What do you think?

Kind Regards,

Giovanni

Def. Quota "Markus Sabadello" <>:

So the point is that in a PDS you want to do this, right?

=example

           $is$a

                       +person

           +email$1

                       ??

=example$1

           $is$a

                       +home+person

           +home+email

                       =example+email$1

Not really sure how well it would work in practice.. If there were more

subsegments than just =example and +email$1, how would I know where to break

them up into their "subject" and "predicate" parts in order to follow the

reference and find the literal value?

I.e. in the above example, how do I know I have to look for subject =example

and then for predicate +email$1, rather than for subject =example+email and

then for predicate $1 ?

Markus

----------------------------------------------------------------

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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