[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
nathan at webr3.org
Thu Dec 16 17:50:52 CET 2010
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.
>> 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.
Exactly, WebID is insanely interesting because it potentially sits on
the intersection of virtually every web, device and network technology
known, and thus brings experts and people interested in those
technologies together, if anything, that's WebIDs most endearing feature
and makes it an epic win, to remove this factor and tie to something so
specific as RDF/XML would imho, be tragic.
More information about the foaf-protocols