[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

Jiří Procházka ojirio at gmail.com
Thu Dec 16 17:00:19 CET 2010

On 12/16/2010 04:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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.
>>> Kingsley
>> 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:
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-October/003936.html
> 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.

I am not sure I comprehend you. My idea was, that WebID should be a name
for technology of interoperable implementations. I don't think there
would be much value for having "WebID-RDF" and WebID-OData" or whatever,
each being a separate ecosystem if non-interoperable implementations of
the abstract WebID protocol. For the implementations to be
interoperable, there has to be some choices regarding minimal
requirements on syntax.

Of course separating the specs in WebID abstract protocol semantics and
WebID the interoperable system spec is fine and I encourage that, but
lets make sure the latter is understood by the label "WebID", not the


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20101216/0d93d9af/attachment.pgp 

More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list