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

Re: telconf 07-11-2012 : what is webid

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:57:08 -0500
Message-ID: <50A56534.8010609@w3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: Andrei SAMBRA <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
[snip]

>> That was the concern of the people who set the definition for WebID at
>> TPAC.
>
> Not wanting to go backwards, instead of forwards. The conclusion at TPAC
> were simply wrong albeit well intended.

Maybe you need to ask yourself why all the people in the room agreed,
and why you're still fighting?

>
>> I don't understand why people are loosing time with changing the
>> definition.
>
> Because any definition of WebID that includes specific references to
> hash URIs and Turtle is broken. Simple as that.

To you maybe. Not to the people interested in defining the standard,
and with adoption as a goal.

I don't have time to spend on endless debates when only a very few
individuals are noisy. I define and implement systems.

So I would suggest to people to focus on the definition we had
previously, and adapt the spec and our implementations accordingly.

Let's move forward please.

Alexandre.

>
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Alexandre.
>>
>>>
>>> For WebID based authentication to work it doesn't need to compromise the
>>> virtues of URIs. Just use simple examples to make matters clearer.
>>>
>>> The solution to the problem is that you don't introduce technology via a
>>> technical spec. It's conventionally achieved as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. conceptual guide and overview
>>> 2. technical specs
>>> 3. implementation guides and examples -- this is where you can be
>>> specific about URLs, Turtle docs etc.. by using them in all the
>>> examples.
>>>
>>> When you start from #2 you are vulnerable to:
>>>
>>> 1. political distractions -- e.g., format (as opposed to semantics)
>>> oriented warfare
>>> 2. FUD -- when the abstract nature isn't obvious those threatened will
>>> come at you with FUD.
>>>
>>> We don't need to compromise the essence of the Web for all of this to
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Remember, HTML wasn't prescribed to the world en route to WWW bootstrap,
>>> the "view source" pattern from early browsers enabled folks to cut and
>>> paste what was behind the page (which could have been anything) into new
>>> spaces en route to understanding the implications of fusing Hypertext
>>> and TCP/IP.
>>>
>>> Standards are retrsopective things, they are the result of coalescing
>>> around what works, so the sequence is always:
>>>
>>> 1. de facto standard -- common practice
>>> 3. industry standard -- accepted best practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kingsley
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 21:57:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 November 2012 21:57:47 GMT