I feel a little bit uncomfortable to have to use two contexts for a single definition, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work :)
FYI this is what the current mapping file of the XDI2 Facebook connector looks like:
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(name)>)/$ref/+(<+name>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(first_name)>)/$ref/+(+first)+(<+name>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(middle_name)>)/$ref/+(+middle)+(<+name>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(last_name)>)/$ref/+(+last)+(<+name>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(gender)>)/$ref/+(<+gender>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(locale)>)/$ref/+(<+locale>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(email)>)/$ref/+(<+email>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(website)>)/$ref/+(<+website>)
(https://facebook.com/)+(+(user))+(<+(birthday)>)/$ref/+(<+birthday>)
I'm guessing after the change it would look like this:
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(name)>/$ref/+<+name>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(first_name)>/$ref/++first+<+name>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(middle_name)>/$ref/++middle+<+name>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(last_name)>/$ref/++last+<+name>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(gender)>/$ref/+<+gender>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(locale)>/$ref/+<+locale>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(email)>/$ref/+<+email>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(website)>/$ref/+<+website>
(https://facebook.com/)++(user)+<+(birthday)>/$ref/+<+birthday>
Markus
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Drummond Reed <> wrote:
After a good XDI Core editing session with Joseph tonight, we made the executive decision to adopt the dictionary definition syntax proposal discussed briefly on the last few telecons—namely, to use + syntax instead of $( ) syntax. I have updated the Graph Model Structure wiki page accordingly:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/GraphModelStructure
For the record, the reasons are:
$( ) syntax was the only vestige of our former syntax that depended heavily on cross-references.
I$( ) syntax is also the only syntax that required a prefix before a bracketing symbol (which makes it particularly complicated); all of the new bracketing symbol syntaxes we adopted do not use a prefix context symbol.
+ syntax is much simpler and can accomplish everything that $( ) syntax could.
Leaving $( ) syntax undefined means it is available to define once we get to the XDI query language (for which I suspect it might be needed).
The rule with using + syntax for dictionary defintions is that the + symbol is BY ITSELF the dictionary definition context. Thus to define any entity or attribute, just put it in that context. Examples:
Entity singleton: +passport Definition: ++passport
Attribute singleton: <+tel> Definition: +<+tel>
XDI authorities can create their own personal, legal, or general dictionary namespaces spaces by prefixing their own XDI addresses with +. So, for example, if Neustar had its own definition of +<+tel>, the definition would be (using Neustar's cloud name):
+@neustar+<+tel>
Then, once Neustar had defined this, I could use an instance of a Neustar telephone number like this:
=drummond+@neustar<+tel>
Any thoughts before Joseph and I write this into XDI Core 1.0 WD01?
=Drummond
