Les, per my last message, I agree with Markus. I prefer not to go into the old XRI semantics and I-Broker agreements and rather just focus with on current XDI semantics. But with these, an = identifier is used exclusively to identify a natural person. If you wanted to identify a dog, you could use:
=les.chasen*rover
=les.chasen+dog*rover
Similarly for a car:
=les.chasen*hotrod
=les.chasen+car*hotrod
But an =identifier by itself always represents a natural person (and the new XDI.org registration agreements should specify that). That's very clean, and makes the =authority branches of the XDI graph very clear.
=Drummond
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Markus Sabadello <> wrote:
But (at least under the old I-Broker system) this would be a violation of the registration agreement.
And in XDI I believe it would be inconsistent with the semantic meaning of =
Markus
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Chasen, Les <> wrote:
The question came up whether the = symbol can be
used to identify dogs or phones. Markus explained that the = symbol is strictly for natural persons. To identify the concept
of a dog, +dog would be used. To assign an identifier to a specific dog, a * identifier would be used. Markus added that a registrar for XDI identifiers will typically have legal requirements to allow registration of = and @ identifiers only for purposes consistent
with their semantic meanings. Animesh speculated whether it would make sense to also have a registry for * identifiers.
I could have =rover who happens to be a +dog. Couldn't i?
I could also have =les.chasen.car which happens to be a +car.
I wouldn't have to have these in the = community but i could if i wanted to.
