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

Henry Story henry.story at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 17:21:35 CEST 2010

On 2 Aug 2010, at 16:34, Bruno Harbulot wrote:

> On 02/08/10 12:54, Henry Story wrote:
>> [...]
>> In the end what matters is that we can all interoperate, and that we can build cool apps.
> Sure, but that's an argument in favour of a small number of formats and to have them mandatory (at least on one side).

It is a very good argument in favor of a few. But it is a practical argument. 
The spec can make this argument, without specifying that it MUST be so.

As you say in your last email

"To me, it's quite clear that social networking websites that 
choose to implement WebID but don't serve an HTML representation will 
fail to be considered useful by users, so there will be a bit of 
self-selection there anyway."

Self selection are a very important factor of conventions. What we are looking are for points of equilibrium in a game of coordination. See David Lewis' book (especially the introduction):


As more and more value stems from people doing things certain ways, it will become more and more valuable for others to do the same.

> GRDDL and XSPARQL may be good technologies to help implementing this conversion, but we shouldn't assume that they're there.

but we should be open to them be used and allow them to be used. If a group manages to bring us a few millions users because psychologically they just can't get their mind around RDF, then we should help them do what they want to do correctly, and welcome those people onboard. 

Of course, if everyone is happy to use rdf/xml and rdfa then we will all be more efficient. And of course other formats will need to have good arguments, to convince us all to bother with their special case.

I'll try writing out something to show how we can all come to an agreement here.


> Best wishes,
> Bruno.

More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list