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

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Aug 2 21:37:17 CEST 2010


On 2 August 2010 21:30, Seth Russell <russell.seth at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Can you explain why you consider this essential?

Do you consider (X)HTML human readable?


>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d8513ee8/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list