[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

Jiří Procházka ojirio at gmail.com
Thu Dec 16 18:57:20 CET 2010


On 12/16/2010 05:50 PM, 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 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.
> 
> 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.

Nathan, that sounds quite strange, hearing this from you, because I
remember saying on #swig:
"single triple PEM public key does work, but requires RDF - personally I
want and need RDF, otherwise the protocol and webid and all of this
convo is pointless and shouldn't be in swig, it's just check if a cert
matches a cert and that's it - which you don't need and you don't gain
anything" ( http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2010-10-06.html#T16-47-56 )

Anyhow, like I said, I am very supportive of this notion of independence
- WebID getting as much adoption as possible. But also I said that now I
think RDF seems to be the best way to make that work, being simpler and
easier to adopt (with one required serialization), then scattering all
the information in various hearders and certificate medatada formats,
which not only would create a swamp, but also be very inflexible
regarding extending the protocol and forward-compatibility-wise.

This is a discussion we should definitely have, best on this list, only
question is when. I wouldn't complain if this was part of the IG
discussions, rather then do it now, but I hope they would be public so I
can participate (ideally on this list), and in written form (much more
flexible then telecons).

Cheers,
Jiri

-------------- 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/20101216/256ef992/attachment.pgp 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list