[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Thu Dec 16 18:23:06 CET 2010
On 12/16/10 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
> 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
>>>> 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