[foaf-protocols] WebID spec: supported RDF formats (bis)
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Sun Jul 18 21:44:12 CEST 2010
On 18 July 2010 21:34, Bruno Harbulot <Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk>wrote:
> On 18/07/2010 19:46, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > Jiri,
> > The way you deal with "WebID" banners is via interop fests that
> > explicitly included "WebID Certified" as the prize. Again, this should
> > be something complimentary to the spec.
> > We've already done a lot of interop re. WebID protocol on this mailing
> > list over the last 12 months.
> > We can achieve what you seek without making the the spec. vulnerable to
> > FUD (in the broadest sense).
> What's the point of writing a spec, then?
It's a definitive place to show people how to log in to the Web itself.
Something that's been missing for 10 years. We almost got there 5 years
ago, with Yadis 1.0 / OpenID by bradfitz which was a foaf protocol.
That this hasnt been done in 10 years shows that it needs to be nailed
sooner rather than later. Let's do it quickly and move on to the next
challenges. ie Access Control.
Remember also what they say in the iETF, a spec isnt ready when there's
nothing left to add, a spec is ready when there's nothing left to take out.
> I mean, X.509 is already there, TLS is already there, the cert ontology
> is almost there. Why bother if we don't tell people who don't have time
> to go through the archives and the full history what to do to have an
> implementation that can talk to the ones we've already made?
> The specification should be a document sufficient (with its references
> to other existing specifications) for a new implementation to work in
> conjunction with ours.
> If we're silent on the format, we're omitting a key element that enable
> implementations to work.
> Best wishes,
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols