[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)
nathan at webr3.org
Mon Aug 2 19:19:35 CEST 2010
Henry Story wrote:
> 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.
>> 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)
agreed on both counts - good enough for me:
"MUST have a representation in a machine readable format."
"MUST have a RDF representation."
I won't debate on which of the above two :p
More information about the foaf-protocols