[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Tue Aug 3 11:11:44 CEST 2010
Henry Story wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2010, at 00:26, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> RDF and semantics. People will see how flexible it is as we use it.
>>> But frankly if that bothers you, then lets forget the spec.
>> So this is an RDF spec? No RDF over emphasis or no spec? I am saying: tone it down a little re. RDF, that's all.
> yes, sorry for cutting the discussion short. It is using the semantic web standards, of which RDF semantics is a core (and evolving piece_). This is what linked data is founded on, anything else that goes that way is just going to reinvent the wheel.
> We use that and we use SPARQL, and the web.
> That does not mean that one cannot use any representation one wants to - as long as it has a clear mapping to RDF, using GRDDL or something like that.
> But please let's not start a discussion on words here. If people can't deal with these distinctions it's to our advantage. Anything they produce will just reinvent what we are doing, just less well.
It isn't a debate about words.
Anyway, here is where we agree (albeit arriving at same destination via
different routes): get people to attempt to reinvent the wheel as a
mechanism for appreciating: RDF (Data Model and various Markup
Syntaxes), SPARQL, RDFa, FOAF etc.. without enforcing them on anyone.
Keeping the Semantics of the WebID protocol distinct from Syntax for
data representation and serialization solves this problem.
President & CEO
More information about the foaf-protocols