[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Thu Dec 16 19:24:49 CET 2010

On 12/16/10 11:00 AM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
> 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.

WebID Protocol. That's what I am talking about. No different from 
essence of your comment.

> 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.

A misconception. You can keep syntax out of the picture, really.

There are many ways to encode an Entity-Attribute-Value graph. You would 
be amazed the degree to which most structured data encoding boils down 
to EAV graphs. Even better, this boils down to FOL (re. Logic based 
Conceptual Schema).

RDF is a provincial distraction, and a very expensive one at that, when 
you factor in the vast community of people (pre. Web) that comprehend 
EAV graphs and FOL.

Keep RDF syntax out, and these communities are all going to comprehend, 
appreciate, aid development of, and adopt WebID -- everyone feels the 
pain of the problem it solves.

> 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
> former.

WebID Protocol is what this is about :-)

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



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/d9ef3d9d/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list