More very interesting $has-related questions

This is related to the whole question about when/if it matters what $has relationships are expressed as XDI predicates vs. subjects.

Again, this only comes up because we're now saying $has statements can be expressed either way, i.e., =example/+email and =example+email identify the same point in the XDI graph.

So the first question is: does an XDI $get for the XRI =example/$has and and XDI $get for the XRI =example$has return the same results? In other words, are they equivalent statements?

The second question is: if they are equivalent, does that mean that an XDI processor should consider all three of the XDI graphs below equivalent?

#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

                        “”

*********************
Again, this will make for fascinating discussion on tomorrow's call.

=Drummond