[foaf-protocols] WebID talk at W3C
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Wed Aug 25 16:04:10 CEST 2010
On 8/25/10 1:05 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 12:41 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> I have one little issue. The demo, your platform demo, isn't one I
>> would call representative of WebID's essence.
>> Sorry, but I still don't get the elevation of Manu's solution to
>> definitive demo status re. WebID.
>> Manu: no offense intended here, but this simply doesn't feel right at
> No offense taken. However, I should point out that it is our demo that
> was the basis for this meeting with the W3C this coming Thursday.
Ah! That's extremely critical information that's been missing from the
If your demo was the event driver/trigger, then of course your demo
should be in its current location etc..
As you can see, "context is always king" :-)
As you can imagine I assume this was a generic WebID oriented session.
> One of
> the things they were expecting to see was a demo of WebID - and that was
> supposed to be a small part of an overall demonstration on Identity on
> the Web.
> I've also been talking with Henry and he said that he'd have a more
> representativve WebID demo as a 2-3 minute video ready by the time that
> we present. I've already said that we'd integrate that into the slide deck.
> Re: the Js+Flash WebID demo, we have tried to be true to the WebID spec
> as it stands right now. Specifically, this section:
> We do steps #1-#4 right now. #5 and #6 is something we're working on,
> but has been proven already via other implementations... it's just a
> matter of hooking up an RDF/XML parser or XHTML+RDFa parser and doing a
> query on the resulting graph.
> I think much of the misunderstandings of what the demo does and does not
> do can be chalked up to not having the proper documentation in place to
> and what our development timeline looks like.
Sorta, but as per comments above, you just resolved a piece of the
puzzle that wasn't part of my thinking at all re. the W3C session.
> It seems to me that both Henry, Kinsgley and Joe are saying that even if
> we implement steps #1-#6, and we allow export of WebID to the browser
> keychain that we still wouldn't be "representative of WebID's essence".
All you need to do is have your WebIDs work with other compliant
platforms. This will happen sooner rather than later via interop
> I'm having a hard time understanding what we are missing as both Henry
> and Kingsley are listing different things at different levels of importance.
We can sort this out via a Wiki re. WebID value prop. and demo guides etc..
>> Joe Presbrey wrote:
>> Agreed. I think it would be a sad waste of WebID's 15 minutes to
> We never intended to focus on that part since it's an implementation
> detail. It doesn't matter in the long run since we want this stuff to be
> in browsers. However, we have to have a good answer to the "What if
> browser vendors don't see things in the way that the WebID community
> sees things?". How do we get from login/identity on the Web today to the
> promised land of WebID 3 years from now?
>> A WebID demo should simply be a URI that enables login/signup using
>> WebIDs generated by any WebID protocol compliant platform. A more
>> neutral demonstration of WebID prowess resides at:
> Henry has reassured me that he will have a demo like this, ready to
> present to W3C by Thursday. So we have both approaches covered.
I think we are set now. Context Context Context :-)
> -- manu
More information about the foaf-protocols