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

Re: Simple Straw Poll re. Hash URI Specificity and WebID Definition

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:14:02 +0100
Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A9CEDF78-67E8-4030-BCA7-9737315A9219@bblfish.net>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>

On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:09, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 21 November 2012 17:04, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> I am not sure the RWW mailing list is the right place to send this message,
> as they have not followed the debate. I think we need a wiki page that lists
> the pros and cons of each of the issues below, if you are going to bring new
> people to the conversation.
> 
> I think it's fine for a straw poll, for those that are interested.  I dont see any of the mailing list protocols being violated, imho.

If you are suggesting that I suggested the mailing list protocols were being violated, 
then you misunderstood the intent of my paragraph above. I was just pointing out
that people who may not have followed the conversion may want to know why they 
are being asked to decide on a technical issue. If so they may like to have some 
information on why they should decide one way or the other.

> 
> Personally I'm a +0 and will get behind the consensus view whatever the terms are called.  I liked it when it was tied FOAF+SSL, I liked it when it was tied to a public key, and I like it even better with the current split between auth and identity.
> 
> All other things being equal, I lean towards the axiom of tolerance to allow as much as possible.
>  
> 
> On 21 Nov 2012, at 16:49, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> > As per a variety of threads re. the matter of the definition of a WebID, I kindly request a simple +1, -1, or 0 vote on the following issue of concern:
> >
> > Should a WebID be defined specifically as a hash based HTTP URI?
> 
> "Specifically" is not clear.
> 
> In terms of language we can use MUST, SHOULD etc.
> 
> So perhaps you can rephrase it in those terms.
> 
> [1] a WebID MUST be a an HTTP hash uri
> [2] a WebID SHOULD be an HTTP hash uri
> [3] a WebID SHOULD be any HTTP hash uri
> 
> in all cases of course we agree that the URI MUST refer to an agent as described in the current spec.
> 
> Is this better?
> 
> 
> >
> > Note:
> > Most of use are extremely time challenged, and really need to make decisions and set priorities re. this matter. Thus, I would like those with a vested interest in this matter to vote.
> >
> > This is an informative endeavor.
> >
> > Poll Question:
> > Do you support defining a WebID *specifically* as a hash based HTTP URI?
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/




Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 16:14:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 November 2012 16:14:36 GMT