RE: [xri] My discussion about XRI on IRC

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

Yes, that's what I was trying to convey... You interpolated correctly!

	-Gabe
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chetan Sabnis [mailto:chetan.sabnis@epok.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:53 PM
> To: Wachob, Gabe
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [xri] My discussion about XRI on IRC
> 
> 
> Good discussion.  Glad to see that they were receptive.
> 
> I am wondering about some of your responses in the IRC.  
> Specifically, 
> the (authOne) authority does have control over *foo in that whatever 
> auhtority (authOne) maps to...that authority is the one that gets to 
> control registration *foo and decide what the descriptor for *foo is. 
> Assuming that the *foo descriptor has another Authority element, then 
> that other Authority element has control over any subsequent 
> registered 
> subsegments.
> 
> In a nutshell, (authOne) controls what descriptor gets 
> returned for *foo 
> but does not necessarilly have any control over what 
> descriptor gets for 
> *foo*bar if *foo's authority element is hosted elsewhere.
> 
> Is that what you were trying to convey?
> 
> 
> Chetan
> 
> 01:47:37 <sbp> so then that raises a further question:
> 
> 01:48:09 <sbp> if you have something along the lines of the 
> xri://(authOne)...(authTwo)... URI that I'm so keen on, I 
> presume you'll 
> first resolve authOne and then authTwo, yes?
> 
> 01:48:17 <GabeW> well
> 
> 01:48:28 <GabeW> XRI resolution treats those as single units
> 
> 01:48:32 <sbp> if so, that would mean authTwo is still 
> dependent on authOne
> 
> 01:48:35 <GabeW> XRI resolution goes from left to right
> 
> 01:49:03 <GabeW> and therefore, (authTwo) gets resolved, as an opaque 
> string, in the context of the prefix of subsegments to the left of it
> 
> 01:49:06 <GabeW> ie
> 
> 01:49:18 <GabeW> xri://(authOne)*foo*(authTwo)
> 
> 01:49:36 <GabeW> in that case, (authTwo) is resolved at the authority 
> identified by xri://(authOne)*foo
> 
> 01:49:49 <sbp> okay, so authOne *explicitly* has to say that 
> anything to 
> the right can be extensible by using yet another authority component?
> 
> 01:50:01 <GabeW> well
> 
> 01:50:05 <GabeW> it delegates
> 
> 01:50:12 <GabeW> so foo is the one who decides
> 
> 01:50:18 <GabeW> that is xri://(authOne)*foo
> 
> 01:50:22 <sbp> oh
> 
> 01:50:35 <sbp> I thought foo was just an identifer that 
> authOne controlled
> 
> 01:50:36 <GabeW> its just left-to-right delegation
> 
> 01:50:39 <GabeW> it is
> 
> 01:50:43 <GabeW> well
> 
> 01:50:49 <GabeW> or it can be an independent authority
> 
> 01:51:04 <GabeW> *'s are the delimiters between authorities
> 
> 01:51:21 <sbp> but authOne gets to choose that? so how is 
> xri://(authOne)*foo*(authTwo) different from 
> xri://(authOne)*foo*authTwo?
> 
> 01:52:12 <GabeW> its not different except that the string 
> (authTwo) is 
> not a legal cross reference - it would be (=AuthTwo) ... 
> Xrefs are just 
> a syntactic way of including a URI - not unlike quotes in the english 
> language
> 
> 01:52:29 <GabeW> and no, authOne doesn't really have control 
> over foo in 
> our case
> 
> 01:52:44 <sbp> this is quite mind-bending!
> 
> Wachob, Gabe wrote:
> > As XRI is getting more visibility with W3C folks, I spent 
> snme time on 
> > IRC discussing XRI with Sean Palmer, a w3c and semantic 
> web-interested 
> > person on #swig - the "Semantic Web Interest Group" IRC 
> channel. This 
> > channel is inhabited by a good number of W3C folks, 
> including several of 
> > the TAG members.
> >  
> > The logs are below, in case anyone is interested in seeing 
> my informal 
> > discussion. It was clear that the introductory document wasn't very 
> > effective with this crowd as the use cases described in the 
> document 
> > didn't seem particularily difficult to meet and it wasn't 
> obvious how 
> > XRI was addressing those use cases more directly than one 
> could address 
> > them with HTTP URIs...
> >  
> > http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/swig/2005-04-20.html#T00-33-58
> >  
> >     -Gabe
> > __________________________________________________
> > _gwachob@visa.com <mailto:gwachob@visa.com>_
> > Chief Systems Architect
> > Technology Strategies and Standards
> > Visa International
> > Phone: +1.650.432.3696   Fax: +1.650.554.6817
> >  
>