W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > November 2012

Re: What is a WebID?

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 18:49:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKrY60aBf3B6XkdKWt5BCdF59=Mc=U2_gpRLdCccK3xOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
On 31 October 2012 14:38, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> In the last 48 hours following TPAC, a definition of what a WebID has
> emerged. It reads as follows: "WebID" (hash HTTP URI which denotes an
> Agent. Where you can GET an RDF model as TURTLE.) .
>
> I believe this definition is unnecessary inflexible albeit well intended.
>
> Problem:
>
> A URI is an opaque identifier.
>
> A Linked Data URI is a de-referencable URI that denotes an entity in such
> a way that when de-referenced said URI resolves to a description document
> of its referent. Put differently, you have two routes to the same document
> content i.e., the first being the entity name (URI) and the other being the
> entity description document address (URI/URL). Ideally, the content of the
> document in question takes the form of RDF model based structured data
> represented (or expressed) using an entity relationship graph.
>
> A WebID supposed to be a Linked Data URI.
>
> HTTP, hash URIs, and even the RDF data model are specific implementation
> details. They are collectively cost-effective and useful, but none of that
> makes them mandatory items for specs relating to Linked Data, Web-scale
> identity verification, or Web-scale resource access control.
>
> The architecture of the Web is deliberately abstract thereby enabling
> powerful loose coupling of data access protocols, data representation
> formats, and semantics.
>
> Simple Example:
>
> At this point in time, should this definition hold, the hashless ProxyURIs
> that we use to watermark X.509 certificates for holders of LinkedIn,
> Twitter, Facebook, G+ etc.. accounts are all rendered non conforming, just
> like that.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> I am officially lodging my opposition to this definition of a URI that
> serves as a WebID.
>

Kingsley, I share you concerns.

It's important to note that this is primarily a branding issue rather than
technical.

We've changed brand before, namely from FOAF+SSL to WebID.

Personally, I find it hard to weigh the pros vs cons of this decision.  But
I do think having an agreed consensus of what terms means (eg identity vs
authentication protocol) is a plus.

I was also horrified to learn that I didnt have a webid anymore, but got it
serving turtle via conneg within an hour, and as a direct result could log
in to my profile again!


>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2012 17:49:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 3 November 2012 17:49:45 GMT