[foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
nathan at webr3.org
Thu Jul 15 02:27:40 CEST 2010
Henry Story wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2010, at 22:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> We cannot LOCK this protocol to any data representation (overtly or
>> covertly). We can suggest or recommend data representations.
>> Go beyond
>> that and we are setting ourselves up for lots of FUD style problems from
>> those that will instinctively feel threatened by this effort.
>> I am a veteran of FUD wars. This effort isn't impervious to a FUD war because
>> it's possibly the most disruptive technology since the advent of the
>> World Wide Web itself.
snap - In full agreement with Kingsley and Henry's comments
> That is exactly why I was suggesting that we remain format neutral as much
> as possible. I think we can suggest that RDF/XML and rdfa as two very likely
> to be supported formats, as a contingent situation at the time of writing, and
> one that should probably be supported by any WebID publisher at that time.
Perhaps it would make sense to sideskirt the formats all together,
perhaps create a section or accompaniment which compares and contrasts
the formats showing the strong points of each, RDFa for HTML+RDF
profiles mixed together other lighter formats for bandwidth
conservation, XML variants for XML toolkit support and so forth.
> There is no need to mandate more because anything more will be determined by
> market forces. So the more WebIDs support RDFa and rdf/xml, which they will do
> for obvious reasons of simplicity of implementation, the more difficult it will
> be for people to move away.
> What is required is that the format have a mechanical mapping to RDF semantics.
> RDF/XML has a well known one
> RDFa also
> and any other XML format can be transformed using GRDDL, by placing an XSLT style sheet at some well specified position at that name space.
> What is important is that those transformation procedures be completely automatable - as GRDDL I believe is.
>> Don't make the WebID about the nebulous Semantic Web. We should stick
>> with the fact that tt makes innovative use of RDF based Linked Data
>> (which requires minimal RDF graph model Semantics as clearly illustrated
>> by TimBL's original meme).
>> Do not repeat past mistakes by introducing anything that could be
>> construed as a bias driven power grab. Instead, coax people into
>> attempting to reinvent which is the FUD proof route to broader
>> enlightenment and appreciation re. this effort.
> yes. We want to give absolutely no hold to FUDsters. And also we want
> to be very flexible, and show just how flexible we can be.
>> Data Representation independence lies at the essential core of HTTP.
>> No HTTP no World Wide Web. Now we know what the world of distributed
>> computing looked like pre. World Wide Web -- many came before and failed
>> where HTTP succeeded !
More information about the foaf-protocols