[foaf-protocols] WebID spec http://bblfish.net/tmp/2010/08/09/index-respec.html
henry.story at gmail.com
Mon Aug 9 18:16:37 CEST 2010
Thanks for the pointers and the update.
A few very quick points:
- Section 2.4 should be section 3. The protocol assumes that the preconditions are in place, but is itself a top level element.
I made that change to a new version I pushed up to my git repository which incorporates your changes and pushed them onto my tmp dir
On 9 Aug 2010, at 17:31, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
> +1 to specs with diagrams. It looked quite big at first sight but I'm sure
> with a bit of polishing it'll fit perfectly in the document.
> re generating the index.html, you can find some instructions at
> In short, CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+s, save as XHTML (source). To save some time in
> light of tomorrow conf call, I created a new draft, ED-webid-20100809 which
> incorporate Henry's changes as well as some other issues I committed in the
> past few days with the following changelog: Updates from WebID community:
> OpenID and OAuth sections moved to separate document, switched to the URI
> terminology instead of URL, added "Creating the certificate" and "Publishing
> the WebID Profile document" section with a WebID graph and serializations in
> Turtle and RDFa, improved SPARQL queries using literal notation with cert
> datatypes, updated list of contributors, and many other fixes.
> Here is hoping Manu can push it to http://payswarm.com/webid/ so we can all
> look at the same version of the spec tomorrow. For now it's at
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have updated the draft spec now with sketches of RDFa, RDF/XML, turtle,
>> and a placeholder for GRDDL. This is explained by showing how they all are
>> representations for the same graph, which I have included as an image I
>> created with OmniGraffle.
>> I was thinking initially we should have a very minimal core spec and a
>> number of specs surrounding this one. But I think now, after having followed
>> the discussion over the past two weeks that we should perhaps do the
>> splitting later if it is needed at all. The reason is that a lot of our
>> discussion concerns issues with content negotiation, and that clearly if we
>> don't cover that in the spec in an obvious and clear way, people will just
>> ask exactly the same questions that have been going round and round on this
>> Note the above is just tentative, but I thought we should at least add that
>> in. We can improve the language and examples, and correct mistakes in due
>> I have made this version available online here
>> And it is in github here
>> Btw, it would be nice to link this version to the previous one, and that
>> one to this one. What is the best way to do this? Also how do I generate the
>> final index.html ?
>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-protocols