[foaf-protocols] webid group said... something interesting
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Tue Mar 22 18:27:54 CET 2011
On 3/22/11 12:40 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 22 March 2011 17:34, peter williams<home_pw at msn.com> wrote:
>> Take away from the webid group call.
>> It’s pointless talking about the letters rdf in a browser group (opera
>> excepted), as folks are still scarred by wars over a decade ago.
>> RDFa is “just about” a discussable topic – because its rendered like HTML
>> and works with today’s browsers. It doesn’t set the pulse racing, and eyes
> I do like RDF but for some reason the brand isnt as powerful as some
> others, such as the Web itself.
Because its the wrong thing to talk about.
Why not talk about the underlying Concept of Linked Data Structures at
InterWeb scale driven by a Conceptual Schema. Then should the "what is a
conceptual schema?" question arise explain how its based on Logic i.e.
first-order logic. Then when they question that, explain to them that
"God created Logic" :-)
> I tend to use the term html5 to talk
> about the data layer of the web, as people seem to have more interest
> in that branding. Under the hood it's all the same thing, though.
The Web is evolving from an Information Space where Linked Data
Containers Names and Addresses are indistinguishable (URI/URL can be
used interchangeably without confusion) to a Data Space where each
Object has a URI based ID (Name Ref) that resolves to the URL/Address or
its Representation. In addition, Representation is Negotiable, so RDF
format fixation is inherently contradictory.
If we speak clearly in a manner that reestablishes the fact that the WWW
is part of an computer technology innovation continuum we'll hit less
friction. If we gobbledygook via "RDF or nothing" narratives then
confusion will reign, inertia will rise, and deservedly so IMHO.
Nothing under the sun made by man is truly new, bar context. Context
switching is how we make and extend continuums. Let's build bridges to
other realms, make connections with these realms by connecting
terminology i.e., we should learn the vocabulary of others rather than
imposing ours for sake of convenience.
>> W3C is no longer formally agnostic about certs and ssl (while actually being
>> quietly subversive); it has taken a position in the mainstream. It’s still
>> looking for its mission in that mainstream. Webid and others have indicated
>> there is now a webby position to be had – distinct from the usual IETF, PKI,
>> identity management groups.
>> Techniques like webid can offend certain camps (e.g. OCSP) as they invade
>> the space (turf wars) by unsettling that which certain camps thought settled
>> (only CAs can issue validation statements about certs).
>> Webid does have one message that resonates with W3C culture – its focus on
>> individuals (and self-assertions, UCI etc) – a space vacated by the openid
>> folks once they went corporate (having failed to make the right pitch to
>> individuals, given XRD/XRI). W3C can thus speak for the little guys in some
>> sense, globally, attempting to find a balance between individuals and
>> corporate interests. At least individuals have a space to have a say (unlike
>> most corporate security spaces)
>> W3C has long history in privacy and signatures (e.g. p3p) which shows a
>> “policy” acumen. This has not translated however into comprehensive family
>> of related standards, that bridge the security policy and global security
>> practices where W3C has shown strong capabilities.
>> W3C recognizes that it doesn’t need to do what IETF or Kantara does, or have
>> formal positions on the US national id program – as it must retain a non-US
>> centric position – being a global movement. This is going to be hard to
>> execute (since 95% of the initiatives are US…led, having comprehensive
>> funding and the dominant market).
>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-protocols