[foaf-protocols] WebID spec: supported RDF formats (bis)

[Jiří Procházka]

On 07/18/2010 05:43 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm not sure we're in agreement on this one yet.
> 
> 
> 1) Who thinks the specification needs to be sufficient for any 
> conforming WebID provider and any conforming Verification Agent to 
> inter-operate?

+1 no comment

> 2) Who thinks there shouldn't be any mandatory format on either side?

-1 can't imagine how that would work

> 3) Who thinks there should be exactly one mandatory format on both sides?

+0.5 would simplify the implementation if the people choose just to
follow the MUSTs (no conneg) but isn't necessary

> 4) Who thinks there should be a guaranteed (MUST) intersection between 
> the formats supported between the WebID provider and the Verification 
> agent? (This can be achieved my mandating support for some formats on 
> one side and mandating support for at least one of these formats on the 
> other side. If so, which sides?)

+1 easiest would be one required format

> 5) Who thinks there should be a strongly recommended (SHOULD) 
> intersection between the formats supported between the WebID provider 
> and the Verification agent? (Same as above, but does one of the parties 
> use 'SHOULD' and the other 'MUST'? Which?)

-1 the people who follow just the MUSTs would prevent fully
interoperable network

Best,
Jiri Prochazka

> In addition to the previous questions, here are some biased questions.
> For those who answer:
> 
> - Yes to (1) and Yes to (2). How do you conciliate those antagonist 
> positions? The magic isn't going to work if we don't specify what needs 
> to be done somehow. Libraries won't suddenly know how to produce or 
> process unknown formats.
> 
> - No to (1). What's the point of writing the specification then? Is it a 
> "best practices" specification or a protocol specification?
> 
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Bruno.
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100718/ffc59d1f/attachment.pgp