[foaf-protocols] using windows to mint web id credentials,

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Sat Nov 26 23:18:52 CET 2011


On 11/26/11 4:49 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 26 Nov 2011, at 21:52, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, to the microformat variant. in the contrasting RDFA case of 
>>> foaf markup, all I did was set the doctype, and html element 
>>> namespace headers in a blogger template. What do I do to tell the 
>>> world of microformat clients that the resulting HTML is microformat 
>>> ready?
>> If Microformat means Microdata, re. comments above, then nothing; 
>> especially if we actually expose people to the fact that Microdata 
>> and RDFa can have equal billing re. WebID and "mirrored claim" 
>> representation via EAV/SPO graph pictorials .
>>>
>>> can i hope that the microformat page parsers are available in native 
>>> dotnet libraries?
>>
>> There's a high possibility that such exist in .NET realm. Microsoft, 
>> Google, Yahoo! are the guys behindSchema.org 
>> <http://Schema.org/>which is based on HTML5 Microdata.
>
> Why are you trying to get Peter to do things not according to spec, 
> Kinglsey?

Henry,

Please be clear about your claims. What do you mean by not according to 
spec?

Peter: Please move our conversation to the RWW mailing list. I don't 
have the time, energy, or desire to start unproductive loops when Henry 
goes into ultra defensive mode. I much prefer dealing with him when he 
has appropriate context for what I am doing. Right now he simply isn't 
in that mode. The good news is that at the right time he'll get into the 
required mode.

>  We have a spec that currently asks for RDFa and rdf/xml. Are we such 
> a strong group that we can already mess up our interoperability even 
> with so few users?

In the right mode, replay the comments above, and you will see the 
contradiction inherent in your comments, really!

>
> RDFa can be discussed. Currently the people who have been 
> participating on this list have been very much in favour of rdfa it 
> seems, since that is how those got into the spec.

No comment.

>
> I think the rdfa/microformat debate is not finished either even in the 
> HTML5 working group.

Is this a debate?

You just don't want to visit the reality that we should encourage people 
to use EITHER! Since this is how you bootstrap. I do not have time for 
another useless 12+ year odyssey. I just don't!

>
> Here is an interesting comparison btw between micro data and RDFa
>
> http://manu.sporny.org/2011/uber-comparison-rdfa-md-uf/

Irrelevant!

>
> Now I have not studied that enough to be able to decide which is best, 
> but  I think we might as well continue with RDFa
> for the moment as the second encoding, because we have all succeeded 
> in getting that to work, as far as I can tell.

What you know is not the measure or determinant of what goes into the 
WebID spec or defines what WebID actually is. Just really have to 
understand this pronto!

Kingsley
>
>
> Henry
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20111126/d8b28cd4/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1625 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20111126/d8b28cd4/attachment-0001.bin 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list