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

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Mon Aug 2 17:56:59 CEST 2010


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

Rendering RDF/XML in HTML will never catch up with HTML+RDFa on the 
browser manufacturer side. RDF/XML is dead to these guys, the will never 
go back. Their talent pool (re. engineering) are HTML oriented, and 
that's why HTML will always rule while the Web User Interaction 
mechanism is primarily browser driven.

Visualizing RDF/XML isn't the issue, its unveiling the power of a graph 
based substrate that is missing. This problem is a little more difficult 
that is obvious to most because its real User Interaction rather than 
User Interface re. UI :-)


Kingsley
>  
>
>
>     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
>     <http://www.speaktomecatalog.com/>
>     Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
>     <http://google.com/profiles/russell.seth>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     foaf-protocols mailing list
>     foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>     <mailto:foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org>
>     http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 







More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list