On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More detailed comments below:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM, David Primmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > And just to dip my toe in the grammar of the urls,
> > /people/{uid}/all/{pid}, which is an individual person record who is
> > associated with {uid}. I'd assume that in a situation where the url is
> > "http://host.com/social-api/people/john.doe/all/john.doe";, we'd be
> > looking up "john.doe" (the one on the left side of the "all") first as
> > a primary user of the container and then looking in the collection of
> > contacts for john.doe That could include someone named "john.doe" but
> > not not a full member of that particular container (the difference
> > between being a gmail user and that gmail user having a contact who
> > happens to be named the same as them or have their email address). In
> > this case, we're not actually going into the friend graph of the local
> > system but into the private contact storage of the user. (I believe
> > Plaxo has this sort of distinction).
>
> Right.
>
>
>
> > The rules would change if we were
> > on a closed system where you could only 'friend' someone in the system
> > that had a uid. In that case the people/john.doe/all/john.doe wold be
> > illegal. I guess the meaning of these relations isn't clear to me, nor
> > is how much of this shindig needs to codify.
>
> I'm not sure why this would be illegal?
>
Well, if you're allowed to friend yourself on the system, I guess it
would work. It would return the shared profile view of the person who
was accessing it I guess. That view myself as others see me api call
is something else isn't it? or is this it? It's a weird corner case.
The whole {uid} is really a guid thing really cleared up a lot for me.
thanks.
>
> >
> >
> > davep
> >
>
