Re: [xdi] Realizations about $has statements

[Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org>]

Giovanni, this is a fascinating suggestion, that I have been thinking about in the background all week.

Let me quickly enumerate the possibilities for just one classic scenario associated with personal data stores: a single email address with two "tags". Based on our discussion so far, here's the three basic possibilities, all of which would be fully semantically valid and consistent with each other:

#1 FULLY COLLAPSED

�

=example

����������� $is$a

����������� ����������� +person

����������� +email

����������� ����������� (/+home+email)

����������� ����������� (/+work+email)

����������� +home+email

����������� ����������� (/+email$1)

����������� +work+email

����������� ����������� (/+email$1)

����������� +email$1

����������� ����������� �example@example.com�

�

#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

����������� ����������� �example@example.com�

�

#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

����������� ����������� �example@example.com�

�

***********
I propose we make the task of analyzing and comparing these three options the main topic of tomorrow's telecon. Talk to you then,

=Drummond

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Giovanni Bartolomeo <giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it> wrote:

Hello Markus and Drummond,

I would propose the following:

=example
� � � � � �$is$a
� � � � � � � � � � � �+person
=example+email
� � � � � � $1
� � � � � � � � � � � �?person@example.com?

=example+email is the set of emails belonging to =example, $1 is the accessor for ?person@example.com?. It is easy to find =example+email$1 solving one by one the subsegments from left to right. And this is unambiguous, assumed that $has is left associative. What do you think?

Kind Regards,
Giovanni

Def. Quota "Markus Sabadello" <markus.sabadello@xdi.org>:

So the point is that in a PDS you want to do this, right?

=example
� � � � � $is$a
� � � � � � � � � � � +person
� � � � � +email$1
� � � � � � � � � � � ?person@example.com?
=example$1
� � � � � $is$a
� � � � � � � � � � � +home+person
� � � � � +home+email
� � � � � � � � � � � =example+email$1

Not really sure how well it would work in practice.. If there were more
subsegments than just =example and +email$1, how would I know where to break
them up into their "subject" and "predicate" parts in order to follow the
reference and find the literal value?

I.e. in the above example, how do I know I have to look for subject =example
and then for predicate +email$1, rather than for subject =example+email and
then for predicate $1 ?

Markus

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. �Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php