Re: [xdi] Last call for feedback on XDI Core 1.0 ABNF

Thanks I think this ABNF can work, but
      I have to point out that there is a quite significant change to
      how I had understood the XDI graph model so far.

      This is the fact that with this ABNF, both the subject and object
      of a relational arc may be literal nodes.

      While we had definitely agreed that objects may be literal nodes,
      for subjects this could be a problem.

      

      1. Your XDI Core V1.0 WD05 in section 4.3 probably has to be
      changed in any case:

      "A Relational arc describes any other relationship between two
        context nodes."

      

      2. I believe literal nodes as subjects would seriously impact our
      RDF compatibility, e.g. in section 4.3.3 you say:

      "XDI relational arcs are the equivalent of RDF properties that
        describe the relationship between two RDF resources"

      

      So we should add this to the next agenda.

      

      Markus

      

      On 10/09/2015 08:27 AM, =Drummond Reed wrote:

    

    
      
As Joseph and Markus and I head into the final 10
        days of editing, I want to make sure anyone who has not looked
        over the ABNF does so ASAP.
        

        

        

          
            
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiAbnf

            

          
          

          

          
The
              two questions Markus raised on the last TC call have been
              answered to his satisfaction (I believe—correct me if I'm
              wrong, Markus).

          

            

          
I
              did my own proof-reading tonight and found two small bugs
              that were an easy fix:
            
              

                
peer-root-variable
                    = "{" peer-root "}"          ==>      
                     peer-root-variable = "{" peer-root-instance
                    "}"

              

              

                
inner-root-variable
                    = "{" inner-root "}"        ==>        
                   inner-root-variable = "{" inner-root-instance
                    "}"

              

            
          

          
The one remaining question (that Joseph had poised in the
            previous version of the ABNF) is whether we should make any
            adjustments to the whitespace rules in the ABNF we inherit
            from JSON. My proposed answer is "No" because:

        

        

          
            
I don't see any reason we should be more restrictive
              than the ABNF rules that the JSON community has already
              established.

            
We will (I assume) normalize out whitespace for any XDI
              signature or encryption operations anyway.

          
          
Does anyone disagree? If so, please speak up now by reply
            to this thread so we can eliminate this as a topic we need
            to talk about on next Monday's call.

        

        

        

        
BTW, I strongly encourage everyone on the TC to attend
            the next two calls (Monday Oct 12 and Monday Oct 19, both
            10-11:30PT) as they are our final two calls before we
          open the XDI Core 1.0 Committee Specification Draft vote after
          the October 19 call. It will be an online vote, so it will
          have to run for a minimum of 1 week to close before IIW, which
          is why we need to open it on the 19th.

        

        

        

          
Thanks,

          

          

          
=Drummond