[foaf-protocols] WebID - mandated syntax or market solution? was WebID Incubator Charter draft
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Sat Dec 18 18:54:54 CET 2010
On 12/17/10 6:53 PM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
> Sorry, but this reply makes me feel like I am talking to a wall. This is
> nothing new to me, what you say it basis for Linked Data which I am
> familiar with in detail for a couple of years, and you have been
> infusing most of your emails with it in one form or another. Lets just
> agree we know what we are talking about and get to the point:
Tell me how anything we do isn't about Linked Data, in reality.
There is no WebID without Linked Data. Period!
> Do you agree the "WebID" name could be used, besides as the protocol
> name, for something like a certificate (think
> http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon) which guarantees to an end
> user the software/service is usable in some way? (when it is not offline
> of course)
WebID is two things in one. An Identifier mechanism and an
Authentication protocol. It's a dual acronym.
> Do you agree there are higher demands on reliability of protocols then
> anything else?
Maybe, but at this juncture I don't feel your context. Hopefully I will
as I read on.
> Do you think if for example with DNS protocol while
> answering your query each participating nameserver could return "syntax
> not understood" error returning it to you as final answer would be good?
> Please name some protocols which do this (syntax conneg - they are just
> defined as logic - the model, like you wish).
DNS is not a good example when we talk about a protocol that based on
structured data packets. These data packets carry EAV content +
de-referenacable identifiers in the E&A slots, and optionally in the V slot.
This is something different. Its about self-describing data structures
and the ability to negotiate representation. The subject realm here is:
Distributed Data Objects. That isn't what DNS is about. The URI
abstraction leverages DNS for Name based Network Expanse with regards to
> Do you realise your reqirement "They have to grok the model and
> negotiate preferred structured data representations." puts much larger
> strain on potential adopters over whole time they attempt to support
> WebID the best, implementing new syntaxes over time as they gain
> popularity, yet still failing to be 100% interoperable, instead of my
> requirement of having to support at least one particular syntax, which
> they can implement once and forget about it, being 100% interoperable
> with valid WebIDs?
We are talking past each other because we have completely different
views of Data Centricity. You believe in Syntax while I believe in
Models where representation can be negotiated.
BTW -- there was a time when we had to write network applications with a
thing called XDR , HTTP put that to rest via Content Negotiation and
clever abstraction. Unfortunately, HTTP is so "deceptively simple" that
folks think its a simple protocol devoid of sophistication. Quite the
contrary in reality.
WebID is an application of HTTP based LInked Data.
HTTP based Linked Data is a product of Web ubiquity.
Web ubiquity is a product of Internet ubiquity.
Internet ubiquity is a product of TCP/IP ubiquity.
Again, to insinuate that WebID and Linked Data are in anyway distinct
ultimately illustrates why we don't agree, at this point in time :-)
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Data_Representation - XDR
More information about the foaf-protocols