[foaf-protocols] WebID - mandated syntax or market solution? was WebID Incubator Charter draft
home_pw at msn.com
Sat Dec 18 20:28:28 CET 2010
I quite like the notion of "no webID without linked data." It's essentially the hypermedia thesis.
The trouble is linked data is religiously tied to http, according to TBL (which really means TCP-era HTTP).
That’s too restrictive for webIDs, I feel (intuitively). Its backwards looking; more mosaic-era thinking.
I want to be able to ask questions about a group of folks using a multicast powered FOAF "protocol" - just like I do already in crypto-powered SIP groups using ISAKMP handshakes (vs SSL's handshakes).
That group needs a "multicast capable' webid. And, the webid protocol would need to leveraging "http over multicast" - which doesn’t exist as far as I know.
Now, I don’t expect this XG to recommend we get to characterize http-over-multicast de-ferencing of FOAF group identifiers.... I think I do expect the agenda to contemplate and communicate via the final report the legitimacy of such, even though you only actually get demos of mosaic-era plugins doing simple TCP queries, today...
From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 9:55 AM
To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID - mandated syntax or market solution? was WebID Incubator Charter draft
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!
More information about the foaf-protocols