[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)

Seth Russell russell.seth at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 14:50:46 CEST 2010


On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Bruno Harbulot <
Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

>  > but any format which can be transformed into RDF triples can be
> > integrated with WebID. The formats which will work out of the box are
> > RDFa, RDF/XML or other RDF serializations.
>
> > Manu: We can phrase it as follows: right now we support RDFa and RDF/XML
> This is kind of what I had suggested a couple of weeks ago:
>
> > A Verification Agent MUST be able to process documents in RDF/XML
> > [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and XHTML+RDFa [XHTML-RDFA].
> > A server responding to a WebID Profile request MUST be able to return a
> > representation in RDF/XML (using media type application/rdf+xml) or
> > XHTML+RDFa (using either media type text/html or media type
> > application/xhtml+xml). In addition, either parties may support any
> > other RDF format via HTTP content-type negotiation.
>
>
> The new version makes things worse, I think:
>
> > A Verification Agent must be able to process documents in RDF/XML
> > [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and XHTML+RDFa [XHTML-RDFA]. A server responding
> > to a WebID Profile request should support HTTP content negotiation.
> > The server must return a representation in RDF/XML for media type
> > application/rdf+xml. The server must return a representation in
> > XHTML+RDFa for media type text/html or media type
> > application/xhtml+xml. Verification Agents and Identification Agents
> > may support any other RDF format via HTTP content negotiation.
>
> Mandating or recommending content-type negotiation could make things
> more difficult for the publisher side.
> Mandating the HTML returned to have some RDFa is also a bad thing, I
> think. The verification agent could very well request
> application/rdf+xml first and then text/html in order or preference.
> Then, a server supporting content-type negotiation could return RDF/XML
> for that and some plain HTML to a browser.
>

I don't know if this has been already dealt with or not, but i think it is
important if you intend WebIDs to be used by people.  First point of
information:   arn't you're giving out WebID's, hopefully short ones, which
people pass around in various contexts to various agents to identify
themselves?  Well if that is the case, then me thinks that is should be
**mandated** that if a person hits one of those WebID's with their browser,
not knowing anything about content negoition, that the WewID URL will
respond with a profile in a human friendly way.   But gentelmen, i don't
think that is what is happening now.   Some respond back in XML ... others
in JSON ... very few of your WebId respond back with a page which an
actually person would want to read.   So is it possible that you guys will
consider actually putting that mandate in the specification?

Seth Russell
Podcasting: tagtalking.net
Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100802/b634a58a/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list