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

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Fri Aug 6 14:12:10 CEST 2010


Manu Sporny wrote:
> 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.
>   

We should *suggest* via examples the optimal format. Certainly for 
adoption it is RDFa no doubt about that.
> 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.
>   

Yep!!

BTW - They hate RDF/XML and refuse to acknowledge the RDF Data Model as 
being distinct :-)
> -- manu
>
>   


-- 

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