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

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Mon Aug 2 23:55:37 CEST 2010


Henry Story wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2010, at 19:28, Kingsley Idehen 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."
>>>  
>>>       
>> RDF Graph Doesn't cut it.
>>
>> You are fixating a little on RDF.
>>     
>
> Well yes, and we should be ok with that. Don't worry about people not grokking RDF, few people will read this document.
>   

Never write a document on the basis of few people reading; especially a 
document that is going to profoundly affect the World Wide Web.

Very dangerous assumption to make here. This isn't one of those specs 
from the past, far from it.
> If we need to we should explain how any format can be seen to map to an RDF graph.
>
>   
>> If you are going to fixate on RDF then we aren't in agreement.
>>
>> "RDF" is as confusing and problematic as you perceive the sentence: ... structured representation of a profile document.
>>
>> We can't fix RDF incomprehension issues via WebID spec. Please don't go down this path.
>>     
>
> No we really need a baseline. We can accept different formats, but we don't want to reinvent semantics here. 
>   

Of course we don't want to reinvent semantics. Reducing emphasis on RDF 
doesn't imply reinvention of semantics. I just want clarity expressed 
via a conceptual model that people understand without an biased induced 
distractions.

>   
>> Let people come to understand what Structured Data is about. How you make a Structured Profile Document that's palabtable to machines and humans.
>>
>> "RDF" is very problematic cos most assume its RDF/XML, and I've long given up trying to fix that misconception.
>>     
>
> Then when you speak to customers use a different word. Most RFC use technical language like SHOULD, MUST, RDFXXXX etc. Customers don't care.
>   
I said "People", no mention of "Customers :-)

The issue is communicating the value proposition of a technology without 
distraction. RDF is a distraction magnet.

Kingsley
> Henry
>
>
>   
>>> 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.
>>>  
>>>       
>> We don't force anything into the spec. We just protect the spec by using appropriate language.
>>
>> I want WebID protected from FUD. But of course, I will only raise this matter so many more times before I go completely silent about this fundamental matter.
>>
>> Kingsley
>>     
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>> -- 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen	      President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 







More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list