[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Mon Aug 2 17:41:46 CEST 2010
Seth Russell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Bruno Harbulot
> <Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk
> <mailto: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
> 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
> > 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
> 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?
Ideally, this is why I've suggested wording such as: structured profile
that is human and machine readable. Basically, this is what you get with
HTML+RDFa . Again its about using wording that isn't susceptible to FUD.
HTML+RDFa is one way of solving the problem without forcing
sophisticated content negotiation and QoS algorithms on adopters.
> Seth Russell
> Podcasting: tagtalking.net <http://tagtalking.net/>
> Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth <http://facebook.com/russell.seth>
> Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell <http://twitter.com/SethRussell>
> Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/ <http://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
President & CEO
More information about the foaf-protocols