[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Thu Dec 16 16:52:05 CET 2010
On 12/16/10 9:31 AM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 02:45 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 12/15/10 5:03 PM, peter williams wrote:
>>> I like this proposal.
>>> What I don't want is the scope to be limited to the linked data movement (or
>>> its various axioms about the world should be).
>> I think you should broaden that and maybe say: it shouldn't be confined
>> to RDF (overtly or covertly).
>>> WebIDs need to be big, like DNs and domain names are big.
>> Yes, Internet of Things scope.
> Suppose you want to resume the offshoot of "PEM certificate- was
> cert:public_key" discussion, where Henry proposed a way of making WebID
> independent on RDF.
> I have previously though this is a good idea, but then I realized a
> functional mistake and considering all options, I think using RDF with
> one required serialization is best. The discussion and my previous
> opinion can be traced from the following message:
You describe an implementer decision re. RDF. We can't make such
assertions re. Semantics of the Protocol.
We must keep Syntax and Semantics distinct. Must also keep Spec and
Implementations distinct etc..
Our own WebID implementations are RDF based, we use RDF/XML extensively
for some very sophisticated things, but none of this justifies forcing
it into WebID spec (overtly or covertly).
I push-back on RDF for good reasons, in due course, may actions will
become much clearer re. efforts such as Linked Data and WebID.
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols