[foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
henry.story at gmail.com
Thu Jul 15 08:26:44 CEST 2010
On 15 Jul 2010, at 01:27, Nathan wrote:
> 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.
I think we are all in agreement essentially. The problem is we need to find the language to write it out correctly. In the IETF process debates occur, then one asks for some text, and people can debate the text then, which is something that is much easier to criticise.
So general direction
- identifying client can ask the WebId for a representation of the WebID doc under a number of formats using content negotiation
- servers should serve responses that have mechanical mappings to RDF semantics, such as RDF/XML or RDFa (which are officially backed?) or GRDDLable XML documents
Given that the two officially supported RDF formats are rdf/xml and RDFa a WebID representation server that supports those is most likely to be understood by most authentication servers, and so allow clients to log in most widely - which is the aim of the protocol.
Then some non-binding section on comparative advantages of rdf/xml and rdfa perhaps.
Anyone volunteer for writing that out in a more elegant way? (Not saying I won't)
More information about the foaf-protocols