[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Thu Dec 16 19:33:30 CET 2010


On 12/16/10 11:26 AM, peter williams wrote:
>
> 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?
>

This might help: http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/iss-1

My key point is that WebID doesn't need any RDF syntax incursions. None 
whatsoever.

Kingsley


> 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  <mailto: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  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>   
>   
>   
>   


-- 

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/20101216/82152863/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list