[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

peter williams home_pw at msn.com
Thu Dec 16 17:26:45 CET 2010


You previous educated me (for one) well on the “intuitions” of linked data, much as Henry educated me well on the core constructs of RDF, FOAF, and semantic modeling in general, and Dan taught me lots about the wider “point of” RDF, the enabler.

 

Can you point to something that talks about semantics of protocols?

 

Im very used to (formal) semantics of authentication protocols (e.g. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.42.9593) . But, Ill guess you have a more webby concept than all that rather old-fashioned stuff.

 

From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:52 AM
To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

 

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.

Kingsley



 
Best,
Jiri
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
foaf-protocols mailing list
foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols






-- 
 
Regards,
 
Kingsley Idehen       
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20101216/126ca3e8/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list