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

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 17:14:26 CEST 2010


On 2 August 2010 14:50, Seth Russell <russell.seth at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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?
>

Browsers manufacturers should really rend RDF/XML in a human friendly way by
now, just like many do with RSS ... the tabulator extension will hopefully
be one more way to do this.


>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100802/b03f14df/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list