[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Fri Aug 6 12:15:36 CEST 2010
Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 12:23 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> yes, we could easily accomplish everything needed with *only* RDFa.
>> I for one would be happy to go balls out and specify 'MUST use RDFa'
>> only, would anybody here who has a WebID or a foaf profile have any good
>> reason not to do this?
If we can't get around this issue re. the spec then yes, +1 .
> I think having a WebID that I can show my friends will help to convince
> them that having a WebID is something "tangible". It helps to be able to
> tell people to look at a URL and explain what's on a page.
> Telling people about your "RDF/XML file that describes your identity" is
> too abstract for most people to grasp. It does a disservice to WebID.
> I do think we should leave it open to other structured data formats like
> TURTLE, N3 and even RDF/XML, but there is a reason that we don't see
> RDF/XML in widespread use. There is a reason that the big search
> companies like Google and Yahoo haven't launched products like Rich
> Snippets for RDF/XML in the last 10 years. Most people just have a very
> difficult time grokking abstract concepts with the limited time that
> they have available for learn new things. If we focus more on /showing/
> instead of /explaining/, it'll help WebID spread more quickly.
> Focusing on XHTML+RDFa is one way that we can /show/ WebID in action.
> This is just another argument to support a single format for WebID -
No re. "support a single format". Its more prudent to suggest or even
mandate a default format? HTTP is about separating data access protocol
and data representation via content negotiation.
> -- manu
President & CEO
More information about the foaf-protocols