[foaf-protocols] catchy logo, catchy name

Story Henry henry.story at bblfish.net
Sun May 16 23:17:12 CEST 2010


On 16 May 2010, at 21:58, mike amundsen wrote:

>> WebId seems good enough. It's like OpenId and has the Webbish elelment. I wonder what Seth thinks.
> 
> yep, it's enough. What I mean to say is that, when engaging in
> conversations, "WebId" elicits questions and using the qualifiers I
> offered usually pops a light bulb over people's heads. FWIW, I've also
> used "Authenticed FOAF" and "Authenticated WebId" to get the same
> positive reactions.

Ah good. I'll try it out myself to see.

> I also agree that the target audience right now is _not_ self-hosting
> FOAF-ers. What I am attempting to convey with the FOAF-a-matic example
> is how easy it can be to get started.
> I fill in some fields, I press a
> button. I get a WebID/FOAF+SSL. The primary point was increasing
> "automatic" part of FOAF+SSL.

yes, I do think out perl and python hackers here could do a really useful job in putting a little package together so that self hosters can put that in their apache cgi directory and get going.

For the fully automatic part of foaf+ssl the example of http://webid.myxwiki.org/ shows that this is fully feasible (though of course as with anything there can be massive improvements)

And yes, I will also go and improve the webid.myxwiki.org velocity script to make it clearer on how a self hoster should update his foaf file....

Henry

> 
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 16:29, Story Henry <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 16 May 2010, at 21:15, mike amundsen wrote:
>> 
>>> Something such as "WebId-o-matic"[1] might be a nice way to introduce
>>> folks to FOAF+SSL.
>> 
>> That is still too geeky. Asking people to copy rdf and install it on their web server
>> is not going to get us a lot of coverage. Much better would be if http://foafbuilder.qdos.org/ added WebId support. But any Web2.0 app can do it easily: all you need is a home page for every users.
>> 
>>> It would basically create the hosted FOAF _and_ do
>>> the cert work at the same time.
>>> 
>>> Some ways I've described this to others recently are:
>>> "Certified FOAF",
>>> "Certified WebId",
>>> "Personal WebId",
>> 
>> WebId seems good enough. It's like OpenId and has the Webbish elelment. I wonder what Seth thinks.
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> mca
>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.ldodds.com/foaf/foaf-a-matic
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 15:40, Story Henry <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
>>>> On Twitter Seth Russel suggested
>>>> 
>>>> "[foaf+ssl] needs a catchy name and a catchy logo ... it's way too hard to even refer to it ...& needs a generic authorize me button" [1]
>>>> 
>>>> Seth, so we have "WebId" as a reasonably catchy name,  and the following logo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> which is kind of cute. foaf+ssl is the technology. But WebId is the name we should be using. Is that good enough?
>>>> 
>>>> Henry
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://twitter.com/SethRussell/status/14115845285
>>>> 
>>>> Social Web Architect
>>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>>> 
>> 
>> 



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list