[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Thu Dec 16 21:07:05 CET 2010


On 16 December 2010 20:57, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen at openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/10 1:52 PM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2010 07:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> On 12/16/10 11:00 AM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I don't think we understand each other here. There is non-negligible
> amount of possible implementors who would like to implement their
> client, and forget about it, expecting it to work with any other WebID
> client.
>
> No doubt, but RDF creep isn't the solution.
>
> Example the Concept, let implementers encode the data using a common model
> based on a logic based conceptual schema (basically what "RDF is everything"
> obscures).
>
> This means they won't have some magical client code which learns
> all the other WebID syntaxes, which would people invent pretty much like
> RDF serializations (even if they downloaded some freely available
> library from the web, I don't think there would be any which would
> support all serializations - again, like with RDF). So there needs to be
> some canonical syntax, which every client would support, exactly because
> of these implementors (after all, syntax independence is quite new for
> some people, especially network programmers who are used to strict
> syntax defined by RFCs etc.).
>
> That's like saying, we can't have EAV model based Linked Data atop
> Relational Data Sources unless Relational Database vendors commit to a
> common syntax at the very least.
>
> In reality a Relational Tables based DBMS and Relational Property Graph DBMS
> are both based on FOL. The key difference boils down to implementation
> choices made by RDBMS folks not allowing Reference Types.
>
> Today, many younger RDF folks would categorize RDBMS to RDF transformation
> as some new age magic. In reality, this is just an exercise re. discovering
> a common base i.e., FOL.
>
> When we agree, that there needs to be some canonical syntax, question
> rises: which? It can be any RDF serialization, OData, or some other EAV
> based syntax.
>
> Just a EAV graph. When you pull back the encoding of most structured data in
> the wild today (and from the past) you will find EAV at the base, and spin
> to the side its basically FOL logic.
>
> My arguments for some RDF serialization are that we don't have to market
> the syntax as RDF serialization - being it brings the advantage, that if
> implementor chooses some of the wide range of already available
> libraries supporting it (another plus), he gains power to understand any
> other metadata which might be stored with the WebID, for free, making
> the endless range of RDF vocabularies and its expressive power available
> to WebID publishers, hopefully creating the open social web, which many
> of us strive for.
>
> The mistake is assuming that we need a syntax based lingua franca for this
> to work. We just need logic and a variety of encodings.
>
> If we keep RDF in the "implementers choice box", and emphasize structured
> data via EAV model, there will be an arms race to implement WebID, and in
> the process people will choose the most productive route (enter RDF and its
> family of syntaxes).
>
> Let's emphasize the logic of the system while leaving syntax choices to
> developers of libraries and full blown WebID based solutions. In due course,
> the most productive bits win out.
>
> I choose to learn Unix before learning MS-DOS in the late '80s, it remains
> the best decision I've made on the professional skills front to date.
> Through Unix (POSIX) I discovered TCP/IP and plethora of key infrastructure
> components that weren't anywhere close to being the global standards they
> are today; at a time when plurality reigned at every conceivable technology
> infrastructure turn.
>
> The best stuff always wins out long term, especially when it isn't forced on
> anyone i.e., its own merits simply bubble to the surface via productivity
> gains.

In a nutshell:

1. A certificate containing a private key, points to an Agent URI

2. Agent URI points to a public key

RDF is the stand out universal method on the Web to do this.  But
universal does not mean unique.

>
>
> Kingsley
>
> Best,
> Jiri
>
> 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 :-)
>
>
> Kingsley
>
> Best,
> Jiri
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> 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
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list