[foaf-protocols] WebID spec version http://bblfish.net/tmp/2010/08/02/

Henry Story henry.story at gmail.com
Wed Aug 4 19:47:08 CEST 2010


On 3 Aug 2010, at 18:33, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 3 Aug 2010, at 14:58, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Henry,
>>> 
>>> i think the sparql query should go to a non-normative section or to the
>> primer, but the spec should be explicit on the ontological terms (properties
>> and datatypes) the verifying agent must understand.
>> 
>> That all depends on what that other document looks like.
>> 
>> For the moment this is close enough to the core of the protocol, to be
>> worth adding here.
>> 
>> The reason we have so many SPARQL queries there is that we are switching to
>> literal notation. If one had to choose the simplest one to keep would be the
>> ASK query.
>> 
> 
> <p class="issue">The above query is using the original non literal method of
> writing a query, and does not support the literal notation. Should we in
> this document take that to now be deprecated?</p>
> 
> The spec should not cover for any deprecated notation. Learn from the few
> trials you've advocated in the past and choose the best one so that the spec
> is easy and straight forward to implement. The amount of existing WebID
> implementations is still small enough (none of them is released as stable
> afaik) and it's easy to go and fix the queries, we know all the maintainers
> and most of them are on this list. I guess the first thing to do now though
> is to agree on the new notation and so that all the implementations can be
> aligned.

Well I favor the Literal notation. It is the cleanest of the lot, and is much 
more flexible, and makes for much better rdfa.

I have uploaded that change to git and to my publication URL.

Henry



> 
> Steph.
> 



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list