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

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 19:10:38 CEST 2010

On 2 August 2010 18:59, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 Aug 2010, at 18:45, Nathan wrote:
> >
> > I really like that sentence - perfect even imho.
> >
> > 'MUST have a Machine and Human readable representation of a structured
> > profile document'
> "MUST have a representation of an RDF graph in a machine readable
> representation. See the section on representations for more about this."
> You cannot force a Human readable representation in the spec. That is again
> a pragmatic issue. If you don't have one, then in many use cases it will be
> difficult for people to understand what is going on, so takeup will be slow.
> This will become obvious when we have more good demos.

I was pretty neutral on this issue, due to the fact that whichever form the
spec takes wrt representations (SHOULD or MUST) it'll be awesome, IMHO

I'm starting to lean strong towards SHOULD for the following reason:

Let's say I'm a provider with a large number (say 500 million) FOAF files.
I want to use the webid protocol, but in a highly optimized way.  I choose a
compressed format that represents the semantics of WebID and PublicKey that
works with all my subsites, this representation may even become popular some
time down the line.  But I dont have the disk to store files in RDF/XML or
RDFa (even though I know I should and would like to).  I think i should be
free to do this and not excluded from the webid protcol.

> Henry
> _______________________________________________
> 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/aa2194ef/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list