[foaf-protocols] catchy logo, catchy name

mike amundsen mamund at yahoo.com
Sun May 16 23:40:39 CEST 2010


cool all the way 'round.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/




On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 17:17, Story Henry <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
> 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