On 11/16/12 9:04 AM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: > > Yes, we know dereferencing in the case of HTTP, but not sure what the > means for other URI schemes. But that is not an issue in the decoupled > approach I'm suggesting above, where at the top level we define the > WebID protocol not tied to any kind of URI, and separately we define > the HTTP URI WebID protocol as we know it today. The other kind of > URIs can be worked out elsewhere without blocking progress on HTTP WebID. > > Steph. +1 Where we all used to be i.e., DNA inherited from Linked Data, which inherits from AWWW etc.. Remember, we already have WebID implementations for other URI schemes. Been so for years. Same even applies to Linked Data itself, we've had non http: resolvers for years. Ultimately URI's are the optimal focal point, but there are folks here that want to make this thing http: specific, and for the very wrong reasons. -- 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 Friday, 16 November 2012 15:00:32 UTC