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

Manu Sporny msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Fri Aug 6 14:03:25 CEST 2010


On 08/06/2010 06:15 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Yes,
>> 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 -
>> XHTML+RDFa.
>>   
> 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.

Kingsley, I think we agree more than not. I'm not trying to take a hard
line stance on the issue. I'd like to see rapid adoption of WebID and I
think if we suggest a single format that definitely works, it will speed
adoption.

However, your arguments that people will create FUD if we mandate just
HTML+RDFa are also valid. Concerns over how we mention and discuss RDF
are also valid. Our experiences in the RDFa Working Group at W3C have
shown us that people have an irrational hatred for RDF (the data model)
based on their knowledge of RDF/XML (the serialization format) which is
mostly unjustified.

I think we can create language to specify that one should use
human-readable structured data to represent the WebID Profile and
provide all examples in XHTML+RDFa to nudge people in the right direction.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: WebApp Security - A jQuery Javascript-native SSL/TLS library
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/07/20/javascript-tls-1/
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/07/20/javascript-tls-2/


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list