[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[email@example.com: Re: SDSI syntax]
Simon raises the issue of query syntax (copy below). SDSI uses
a ``template'' format, so that Simon's example object:
(b: (c: bar)
would satisfy the SDSI search template:
( Template: ( b: (d: fratz ) ) )
The details of the template matching rules are given in the paper:
http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/sdsi.ps (or .tex) Basically,
give the object or attribute type and its required parameters,
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:20:31 +0200
To: Simon Spero <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Ron Rivest <email@example.com>
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Patrik Faltstrom)
Subject: Re: SDSI syntax
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
At 15.59 96-04-29, Simon Spero wrote:
>Whois++ (and in general all RFC822 derived formats) are basically flat.
What we did in Whois++ was to define that:
1) One attribute name can occur several times (as in RFC-822)
2) The order of the attributes are significant (which is not the case
By using this grouping functionality in Whois++ one can simulate
"nesting", and we choose this because of implementation constraints.
Keeping track of arbitrary order and multiple attribute names can
be hard enough for a server, but keeping track of real object oriented
structures are a totally different thing. Especially when you start
searching in the object.
Say that you have
(b: (c: bar)
Should you be able to search on "d=fratz", "b.d=fratz" ?
In Whois++ you can express this as
I.e. by including "fake" attribute values, the client can parse this
and recreate the nesting. The query syntax becomes simpler, and that
_is_ sometimes a good thing (tm).