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 17:35:41 +0100
Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F3E3297B-7974-4731-B134-D7FB8374211E@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 21 Nov 2012, at 17:32, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 11/21/12 11:08 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> Sorry I mistyped
>> 
>> [1] a WebID MUST be a an HTTP(s) hash uri
>> [2] a WebID SHOULD be an HTTP(s) hash uri
>> [3] a WebID MUST be an HTTP(s)  uri
> 
> [1] a WebID MUST be a an HTTP(s) hash uri
> [2] a WebID SHOULD be an HTTP(s) hash uri
> [3] a WebID MUST be an HTTP(s) uri
> [4] a WebID SHOULD be a an HTTP(s) uri .

I have the following up here:

  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash

It was my feeling that 4 would allow for non-http URIs
and that this is not part of this debate, that having
been settled last week, and at TPAC I think pretty consistently.

So for the moment I think one has to fill in the arguments.

> 
> -- 
> 
> 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/



Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 16:36:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 November 2012 16:36:20 GMT