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 17:22:31 -0500
Message-ID: <50A56B27.4000206@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>
On 11/15/2012 05:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 11/15/12 4:57 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>> [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?
>
> And clearly you are behind the thread. The definition has been
> corrected. I don't have major issues with the new definition.

True, I'm trying to limit my time to _doing_ things.

> Turtle and hash URLs are not in the new definition.

I wonder if people advocating for such things read the minutes that
lead to the vote and the Approved definition during TPAC.

I'm designing systems, with interoperability and adoption in mind. In
the case of WebID, we believe that it means "building on top of LDP",
which I recall is the only W3C Working Group that is chartered to work
on defining the platform (Read-Write) for RDF data *on the Web*. This
Community Group has *no chance* to bring WebID to LDP if it's not
built on top of LDP, you need to realize that.

So if it means that we need to stop speaking about WebID just because
we don't agree on the goal and the plan, then I'm happy to do so.

What about LDP-ID?

Alexandre.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Please bring yourself up to date re. current state of the thread about
> the WebID definition. You are out of sync right now!
>
> The only debates in play (between Henry and I) right now are minor re.
> URI vs URL, that's it.

True, I'm trying to limit my time on ML to do

>
> Kingsley
>
>>
>> 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 22:23:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 November 2012 22:23:10 GMT