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

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 18:56:36 CEST 2010


On 2 August 2010 18:45, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:

> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > Nathan wrote:
> >> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> yes, we could easily accomplish everything needed with *only* RDFa.
> >>
> >> I for one would be happy to go balls out and specify 'MUST use RDFa'
> >> only, would anybody here who has a WebID or a foaf profile have any
> >> good reason not to do this?
> >
> > No, but we can say MUST as it sets this whole thing up for a FUD assault.
> >
> > We should continue our interop fests and this whole thing will work
> > absolutely fine.
> >
> >>
> >> I could debate every other serialization till the end of time, RDFa I
> >> can't - so why add any others in to the mix.
> >
> > See my comments above. I have a sense of what will happen when "the
> > disrupted" come to grok WebID. They fight hard and dirty (like you can't
> > imagine). I know cos I have been in a few of these scraps, and
> > absolutely not for the faint at heart.
> >
> > Let's not give any of "the disupted" an easy mechanism for muddying the
> > waters.
> >>
> >> Caveat, if any others are added in, then all must be for (other than
> >> N3) they are all equal - RDFa rises above because it's Human Readable,
> >> N3 rises above for obvious reasons, but those N3 reasons aren't needed
> >> for this protocol.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > But MUST we MUSTN'T do re. RDFa and WebID  (yes we know its virtues, but
> > these aren't clear to everyone right now).
> >
> > MUST have a Machine and Human readable representation of a structured
> > profile document will do absolutely fine :-)
> >
>
> I really like that sentence - perfect even imho.
>
> 'MUST have a Machine and Human readable representation of a structured
> profile document'
>

It's not that hard to turn rdf/xml into human readable format

e.g. just add this xslt

http://git.gnu.org.ua/gitweb?p=fvx.git;a=blob_plain;f=fvx-html.xsl;hb=HEAD


>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100802/3134ca83/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list