Interpretation of "relative XRIs"

I still think I 
don't quite follow the rules w/r/t to "relative" XRIs.

 

Is it fair to say 
that a relative XRI is simply one that doesn't specify the naming authority in 
which it is defined? So, for example, the way to "resolve" a relative XRI is 
simply to have a "default" name authority in your resolver? 

 

If so, how is this different from the * 
GCS

 

I'm still concerned 
about our use of "relative" in this case. This is different from "relative" in 
the URI sense, I think, in that, in 2396land, a relative URI is relative to the 
context in which it is presented (ie an HTML file, a MIME wrapper, etc, or in a 
document with XML Base data). We mean something else by "relative" - its not 
relative to the context in which the relative XRI is presented - its relative to 
the client resolver!

 

If this is true, I 
would really like to not call this "relative", or at least call it 
"client-relative" or something more specific.

 

On the other hand, 
if I'm still not getting relativity, it could use more description (and I 
know its marked as being on Dave's plate to describe).

 

    -Gabe