[foaf-protocols] WebID Protocol / WOT Ontology
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Sep 20 11:47:16 CEST 2010
On 20 September 2010 11:21, Henry Story <henry.story at bblfish.net> wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2010, at 10:50, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > In terms of branding I think this is a bit geeky (although perhaps more
> > correct). We want to say to the world, 'put your public key in your
> > Another thought (again adoption oriented) is whether some of these terms
> > go into the top level FOAF space, for ease of publication. It's starting
> > seem as fundamental as OnlineAccount etc.
> Branding is a really complex issue.
Yes, tho I was referring to the choice of predicate :
(rev of) indentity
hasKey (or something similar) sounds the most intuitive
> Though it could go into foaf, so could many other things, such as the
> vocabulary, sioc, etc...
true, perhaps just having foaf:hasKey as a single new element would help, we
already need foaf:Person
> Some could argue that all these namespace are problematic and add to the
> size of a foaf file. But RDFa profiles I believe will solve that problem.
> I hope the cert ontology could make it into a foaf profile :-) That
> would be useful.
I'm just inclined towards minimalism, especially as a publishing pattern.
But it's a preference, not a show stopper. It's clear that simplicity and
adoption are very highly correlated (the adage of make something 10% simpler
and double the adoption I think holds), tho personally adoption is not my
primary concern, WebID is just something I want to use.
RDFa profiles seems an unknown at present time -- what would be optimal
> Though most of us here really like foaf for others this could complicated
> The W3C ontology we have currently neatly separates concerns. When
> to the W3C some thought WebID was tied to foaf, and they did not
> want to buy into foaf. By separating the cert ontology from foaf, we don't
> to be fighting two battles simultaneously in a standards committee. That
> can be very useful. And having a standard stamped by a well known standards
> is going to do a lot more for our branding in many places than the prefix
> an ontology in a rdf file.
Interesting, I didnt realise that about FOAF.
A clean, well maintained, ontology does makes sense, traded off against ease
W3C approval would be a big plus, and obviously feedback is very important.
But it's hard to imagine a formulation of WebID that we've discussed that
will not be highly aligned with the W3C mission and architecture.
> Social Web Architect
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols