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

Re: References again and other comments

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:29:10 +0100
Cc: WebID Incubator Group WG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E366E76B-18E5-4E91-B561-0451F86B3D7A@bblfish.net>
To: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>

On 7 Dec 2011, at 14:57, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I see that the WebID specification is stabilizing. I think it's time to clean references. My comments:
> 1. Remove N3 references (we do not use it in the spec - we talk about it a few weeks ago)
> 2. Add reference to SOAP in section 2.2.1
> 3. Add reference to HTML5 in various sections (e.g. in section 2.1.1)
> 4. Now in spec there is RDFa reference to XHTML+RDFa 1.1. I think is should be changed. This can be solved in two ways:
> 4.1. Update XHTML+RDFa ref to RDFa Core ref
> 4.2. Near XHTML+RDFa ref add HTML+RDFa ref [1]
> 5. Move GRDDL-PRIMER to Informative references
> 6. Add reference to HTML version of Cert ont

+1 on all that. Can update your branch to my branch in hg and then make those changes. I'll merge both of them then
and pull them back into the main branch later.

> 
> I have also some comments to other parts:
> 1. Remove issue about DSA. We have RSA ont. DSA is for the later future. Up to January we won't be ready to develope DSA ontology

ok.

> 2. Remove issue about Bergi's new HTTP header. Bergi proposal is very interesting but it but this is in IETF competence. We need to join the discussion in HTTP mailing list.

ok. We should keep the issue open though. it is going to be very useful. I propose that Bergi adds some text to a branch of his of the latest WebId Protocol, with his proposal, publish it on his site, and then go back to the HTTP list with a pointer to help them understand why we need it.

> 3. I think you should add to authorization (section 3.2.5) that there is a lot of scenarios. You mentioned that there are true/false authorization and Web of Trust authorization, but there is also possible another like prof. Geadke and mine proposal to roles [2]. Also you can use FOAF groups etc.

http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/12/06/index-respec.html#authorization
I say  "There are too many possibilities to list them all here."

I think we are missing normative and non-normative 

> 4. I think that EARL tests should be added to Appendices section.

Mhh. Yes, but we need to think about that a bit more. Perhaps for the next spec release.

> 5. Because the process of our incubator group is going to end it is a good time to mention in the Acknowledgments section about members of the group.

Indeed. At present most people just added themselves to the list in github. Some have not been that busy in the last year, others have been a lot more, so we need to find a way to be fair in how we recognise people.



> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/
> [2] http://d-cent.org/fsw2011/wp-content/uploads/fsw2011-WebID+ACO-A-distributed-identification-mechanism-for-social-web.pdf
> 
> Best regards,
> Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 14:29:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 December 2011 14:29:45 GMT