[foaf-dev] Does a WebId have to have a fragment?

Dan Brickley danbri at danbri.org
Sat Dec 19 19:37:29 CET 2009


+cc: TimBL, who has been advocating for this terminology

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Norman Gray <norman at astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> WebIDs were mentioned in another thread here.  A bit of googling found <http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebID>, indicating that the term 'WebID' was less vapourous than I thought it was.  Good!
>
> That document discusses how to make your own WebID, mentions making a FOAF file, and says:
>
>> Your Web ID is made up of the URL of that file on the Web, plus #ABC, where you replace ABC with your initials.(Technically, you can use #me, #this, or any other fragment identifier; initials are currently being recommended.) (<-- recommended by whom? and how to handle suffixes, e.g., Jr., Sr., III, IV?)
>
> That is, this account fairly explicitly says that the WebID _must_ have a fragment identifier.  Is that necessary, or just an accident of drafting.  I've used http://nxg.me.uk/norman/ as the location of my FOAF file -- is that now not a WebID?
>
> Or -- the short version -- is a WebID intended to be just any URI which is declared to be a foaf:Person?

My understanding: WebID is a URI for a Person (or broadly, also an
agent, eg. group/organization/company), where we emphasise some strong
level of control by the identified party over the URI and hence over
the descriptions directly associated with it. My WebID could be c/o
some hosting service (eg. my.opera.com, hi5 etc.), although a
user-controlled domain name would be closer to the spirit of the
thing. The URI could either have a # in it, or be an http URI without
a # (so long as 303 redirects are sent if de-referenced). So I believe
the #-centric terminology in the wiki page is an artifact rather than
a defining feature. Try changing the page and see if anyone changes it
back! ;)

Dan


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list