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

Re: WebID, WebID Protocol definitions and requirements.

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:52:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnF-0_5nmxCRgAuG58SHv0OBF6kPOvJnbhDNQnBzOs9YQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rww@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
<snip>

> Okay. Let's ignore the turtle side of things for now, all the arguments on
> having a single common format supported by all are fairly sound for
> interoperability reasons.
>
> So the issue comes down to #frag - this is familiar.
>
> Personally, I want to see as many people as possible using frag http uris
> to denote agents, and also want to ensure that WebID protocol encourages
> this
>

The WebID protocol should not encourage a particular pattern for mintings
URI, who knows what will be fashionable in 2 years? what if TAG or some
other group comes up with a resolution on the http-range14 debate? I'm not
opposed to using #frag in non-normative examples in the spec, or in some
kind of primer, but IMO for future proofing, the protocol should not be
tied to #frag URIs or any other pattern.

 but does not prevent or preclude any dereferencable http URI, frag or
> slash.


yes

Steph.


>
> For reference, would you be 0/1 with:
>
> a) definition WebID: an HTTP URI which denotes an Agent. Where you can GET
> an RDF model as TURTLE.
>
> b) subjectAltName ... MUST be an HTTP URI ...
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>


-- 
Steph.
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:52:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 31 October 2012 16:52:32 GMT