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

Seth Russell russell.seth at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 21:30:49 CEST 2010


The human readable part of the WebID *is* an *essential* component of the
thing.   Without that essential component it is not a real WebID.   We
certainly can put in some minimal wording about partial compliance, so that
if some hacker wants to implement something for a shortcut, that is fine,
this specification will not stand in her way, or make her life harder.   But
she should be aware that she is not making a real fully compliant WebID.

Seth Russell
Podcasting: tagtalking.net
Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth


On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 2 Aug 2010, at 20:36, Seth Russell wrote:
>
> > Henry, i resent your tone here.
>
> Ok, that's the way of email. Don't worry.
>
> > I wasn't born yesterday, i have been
> > hanging around watching the W3C specification process for a long time and
> i
> > am quite familiar with the function of specification on the internet.
> > That said, i will address the only  thing you said which  does not just
> > sound to me like a rationalization to kick  an issue down the road.
> >
> >> Even if we wrote it down, why would people follow it?
> >
> > Engineers and webmasters go to the specification all the time to figure
> out
> > what to do.    If they cannot find any place where it is written down,
> then
> > usually they turn to examples of how it is being done in practice.
>  Well
> > now, if those engineers and webmasters do that, what do they find in this
> > case?   Most of the examples of WebIDs out there now do you return any
> human
> > readable profile if you hit them with your browser.   Your own WebID is a
> > fine example of the way to do it.   But mine, which i got from openlink
> is
> > not ... it returns JSON.  How are we to change the behavior of  the
> > engineers and webmasters if we don't even have the courage to write down
> how
> > we intend it to be done?
>
> Perhaps if I put it like this:
>
> The  WebID protocol is about proving Identity, of authentifiying a user.
> That is all. The way the WebID protocol works just does not require a human
> readable representation. And it may in many cases be useless to generate
> one.
> I think we could imagine many cases of robots communicating, and
> authentifying themselves without requiring a Human Repr. And then which
> human language would one have to specify?
>
> Having a HR is about how to make good user friendly web sites. But that can
> only be an ought for someone with that aim.
>
> The core spec should be about the authentication protocol. It is a small
> chapter in a huge book.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> >
> > Seth Russell
> > Podcasting: tagtalking.net
> > Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
> > Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
> > Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
> > Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
> > Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2 Aug 2010, at 20:10, Seth Russell wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM, 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why not?
> >>
> >> Because we are in the process of describing the WebID protocol, not how
> to
> >> make people like your site. In engineering, and in many other fields of
> >> human
> >> endeavor, small is beautiful. Do one thing, and do it well.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If you leave this open, then  it is less likely to happen in the
> >>> way most of us  want it to happen.
> >>
> >> Here you are attributing to specifications some magic power they don't
> >> have.
> >> Even if we wrote it down, why would people follow it?
> >>
> >>>  If it doesn't happen, then WebIDs will
> >>> be less valuable and less useful.    Pepole and webmasters will have
> far
> >>> less motive to go the extra mile to get them, or agents accept or
> provide
> >>> them.
> >>
> >> If those people need a spec to motivate them, then we should give up! I
> >> have never heard of specs motivating anyone. They are useful for
> guidance.
> >>
> >> Notice all our implementations function without a spec!
> >>
> >>> Then you are certainly would be right, "it will be difficult for
> >>> people  to understand what is going on and  takeup will be slow".
>  Your
> >>> also right that this  a pragmatic issue.    Where is it written in
> stone
> >>> that  practical issues cannot be decided by specification?
> >>
> >> e.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Seth
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foaf-protocols mailing list
> >>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> >>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20100802/33ecabb2/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list