W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > April 2011

Re: a totally minimal RDFa doc, please

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:47:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA74146.2080400@openlinksw.com>
To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
> Hi,
> I think now it might be a good time to consider my suggestion to develop
> a separate (but linked) spec defining a minimal interoperable working
> implementation, which would be useful for interoperability, service
> branding etc.
> I already suggested this few months ago as you might remember, although
> not regarding URI scheme, but the profile syntax (conclusion:
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-December/004322.html
> ).
> I think this is a good way to solve the conflict of our desires - on one
> side WebID to be as flexible, open and architecturally "clean" as
> possible and on the other simple, completely interoperable with any
> conforming agent, easy to implement, thus easily gaining adoption.

Yes. But remember, easy to implement doesn't really guarantee mass 
adoption. Of course, programmers want to perform minimal work, but I 
strongly believe architecture is what scales ultimately. Our most recent 
evidence comes from the WWW itself.  Being "deceptively simple" isn't 
equivalent to "simply simple", a conundurum that continues to dog many 
contemporary technology efforts :-)


Kingsley
> Best,
> Jiri
>
>
> On 04/14/2011 05:52 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 17:41, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>>> (I generated the page from the second tab of http://x509.me
>>>> The test a certificate option. My cert was generated of the first page (optional). My cert had a SAN pointing to a blank page to start with. Press the test button on the second tab. It fails as it was a blank page and spits out the rdfa required for it to pass. Cut, copy, paste.)
>>>>
>>> I just tested the service above.
>>>
>>> Results:
>>>
>>> 1. HTTP scheme WebIDs - Pass
>>> 2. Non HTTP scheme WebIDs - Fail .
>>>
>>> WebID is not about HTTP scheme WebIDs, solely. Courtesy of WWW ubiquity, HTTP scheme WebIDs are a very cost-effective *option*. Important downside: they are unintuitive. Basically, the problem addressed by WebFinger and Fingerpoint. Thus, we must stick to URI scheme agnosticism re WebID verification.
>> yes, but not everybody has time to implement all the other schemes, which have not yet undergone the same level of scrutiny. Let us get the test cases and documentation for https webid's under our belt, then we can move to the other schemes.
>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen	
>>> President&   CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 18:47:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:24 UTC