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

Re: a remark on the webid spec

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:17:29 +0100
Cc: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>
Message-Id: <D0E70E5B-C4AB-4B68-AFED-05203FC32A27@bblfish.net>
To: public-xg-webid XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

On 14 Dec 2011, at 03:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 12/13/11 8:33 PM, Mischa Tuffield wrote:
>> 
>> PREFIX : <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
>> PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
>> PREFIX xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
>> ASK {
>>    GRAPH ?g {
>>     ?g foaf:primaryTopic ?webid .
>>      ?webid a foaf:Person . 
>>       ?webid :key [
>>          :modulus ?mod;
>>          :exponent ?exp;
>>       ] .
>>    }
>> }
> 
> That introduces issues re. meaning of ?g. This varies across SPARQL services. Thus, the spec is better off staying with:
> 
> PREFIX : <http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/cert#>
> PREFIX xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
> ASK {
>    <https://bob.example/profile#me> :key [
>       :modulus "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"^^xsd:hexBinary;
>       :exponent 65537;
>    ] .
> }

agree, but +1 on all the other points Mischa made.

We are also trying to keep the SPARQL as simple as possible. Adding primary topics, and foaf:Person (rather than say foaf:Group, or foaf:Agent)
is going to create false negatives. Of course if it were well defined that GRAPH ?G would GET the latest Graph from the web, deal correctly with caches etc... then we would have a massive simplification of our spec :-) Well not quite, because we'd still have to explain it for the moment for people who don't have the latest sparql implementation, or else they would think our protocol requires it.

Henry

> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 08:17:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 December 2011 08:18:01 GMT