Re: WebID teleconf, Friday 30 Nov

hi, i'd like to add an non-goal to this, that would be to define webID
to fit webID+TLS. since we have no clue what authentication methods
there will be.

see 3. MUST be an HTTP(s) URI section
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/index.php?title=WebID_Definition/hash&oldid=481

wkr turnguard

On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 19:32 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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".
> 

-- 
| Jürgen Jakobitsch, 
| Software Developer
| Semantic Web Company GmbH
| Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
| A - 1070 Wien, Austria
| Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22

COMPANY INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.semantic-web.at/
| foaf      : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
PERSONAL INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.turnguard.com
| foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
| g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
| skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
| xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"