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

Henry Story henry.story at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 19:15:13 CEST 2010


On 2 Aug 2010, at 19:09, Nathan wrote:

> Henry Story 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.
> 
> okay
> 
> 1: MUST have a representation of what exactly? just any old graph? a 
> profile? or the public key or?

Well the next part of the protocol will make that clear. If the SPARQL query
on that graph fails then you cannot confirm identity.

> 
> 2: MUST have a MRD, SHOULD have a HRD || are encouraged to have an HRD - 
> i.e. stick to only the must's or also include the very beneficial?

Well the HRD and MRD and all descriptions stuff can be moved to another section.
If you want the howto doc, can make the point as to how it is very good practice to have an HRD (and if it does not have semantics I suggest it have at least a pointer to a machine readable doc)


> ?
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list