[foaf-protocols] WebID spec: supported RDF formats

[Seth Russell]

So let me get this straight:  You're going to suggest in the specification
that people to publish in RDF/XML and/or RDFa, and/or N3 (or is that
Turtle?), then your going to *mandate* that websites verify the ID by
dereferencing the file, figuring out what format it is in,  and expect them
to  have a parser for that format handy.  Then do we know which vocabulary
to use after that?   And  you expect every joe bloe website to jump on that
one, do you ?

Seth Russell
Alpha testing: tagtalking.net
Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth


On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On 18 July 2010 16:41, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 Jul 2010, at 16:39, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Why just one serialization? Because it greatly simplifies the
>> >>> implementation and as I have explained to in the post you reply to, it
>> >>> should be required on both the verification and publication side. If
>> >>> ease of adoption is of major priority, you should understand it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > +1
>>
>> -10
>>
>> Which serialisation would you go for? RDFa or RDF/XML?
>>
>
> Sorry not sure I got that across well.
>
> My +1 was for Kinsley's comment.
>
> I favour the 'deceptively simple' approach
>
> I would give examples of serializations in RDF/XML and RDFa, yes.
>
>
>>
>> Henry
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100718/ce9365dd/attachment.htm