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

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Mon Aug 2 18:10:16 CEST 2010


Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> On 02/08/10 16:21, Henry Story wrote:
>   
>> 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."
>>     
>
> It's quite a different thing though.
No it isn't.

Henry is making the same point that I am making.

We can get there by separating Semantics from Data Representation.

We MUST have Structured Profile Documents that have HTML representations.

The REST is simply about implementor specific details.

Remember, the best way to really appreciate HTML+RDFa is by attempting 
to reinvent it en route to producing a Structured Profile Document that 
is Human and Machine readable.

>  I'm still in favour of a 'MUST' for 
> the formats on the verification agent side, because there's no human 
> interaction there. Machines need to be told what to do.
>   

I know you are, but you really need to let go of this notion :-)
> While it's quite obvious for the user that a WebID provider and social 
> networking site will be rubbish because it doesn't provide something 
> nice for the user, it's much less obvious for users to know that they 
> can't log on because the verification agent of the service they're 
> trying to use doesn't support the mandated/recommended formats.
>   
Yes, you make a valid point, but said users won't even get to this point 
if they don't know what a Structured Profile Document is etc.. Thus, we 
are back to the point Henry and I continue to make re. this matter.

> Self-selection won't work without appropriate user feedback, which may 
> be limited depending on how deep the verification agent is.
>   

See my comments above. You need to align the users with the actual usage 
stages of the entire WebID process.

If you don't know where your WebID resides how can you even consider 
using it for any kind of authentication?

> [SNIP]
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bruno.
> _______________________________________________
> 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