Re: WebID teleconf, Friday 30 Nov

On 11/29/12 7:25 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2012, at 22:11, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>
>> Henry Story wrote:
>>> - Cleaning up the arguments for Hash ( removing irrelevant ones, organising others,
>>>   standardising language, shortening to essential the points )
>>>   http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/hash
>> Good idea, but I'd suggest making a new wiki page for it and leaving the working one with everybody's input as is.
> Wikis are there to be edited, and the history of the wiki
> is always there to be gone back to. We can link to the current
> version of the wiki ( which will always be available ) from the
> top as the page as the point where we started a communal exercise
> of bringing things together.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/index.php?title=WebID_Definition/hash&oldid=501
> 	
> I think everyone has had time to put their arguments up, and they
> are mostly  very good. Good enough in  any case that I can see that
> there are good points on every side, and I am not clear what the outcome
> should be.
>
> Some people may also have been convinced by the responses to the
> arguments, and perhaps feel that they want to remove their initial
> points. We could move those to a different section.
>
> But the aim of the exercise is to bring this debate to a closure.
> One part of this is to remove the egos from the arguments so that we can
> all look at them dispassionately. We should not see this as
> one team arguing against another team, but see how the arguments
> function in and of themselves.
>
> So now that everyone has had time to add their ideas, we can now start
> to work on making more sense of the arguments.
>
> Henry
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
Henry,

The bottom line is that we have to make a decision based on clear goals. 
As I see them, the goals are as follows:

1. Maximum interoperability
2. Ease of implementation.

#1 might imply many implementation paths which some might find 
disconcerting.

#2 might imply many implementations that fail with regards to 
interoperability thereby making them:

1. Silos
2. Politiccal FUD friendly.

As with all things about the Web (due to its underlying architecture and 
design principles), these matters are "deceptively simple".

-- 

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