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

Re: Important Question re. WebID Verifiers & Linked Data

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:27:48 +0100
Cc: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <83559167-FD73-4F1D-AE76-B2D2782BC10F@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 21 Dec 2011, at 14:58, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> Henry,
> 
> Is a WebID verifier supposed to be a Linked Data consumer ?
> Is a WebID verifier supposed to be an RDF consumer?

In the spec it clearly is an RDF consumer, yes. All our implementations have followed 
this since the beginning. I am not sure if the Verifier itself needs to be a Linked
data engine, but it is best for authorisation that it is. That's where things get
interesting.

> 
> Please understand that RDF != Linked Data. It's just one of the options for creating and publishing Linked Data.

I think it would be very nice to have a formal spec on what Linked Data is. We do have a few for
RDF.

> 
> In addition:
> 
> Is a WebID verifier supposed to be an HTTP client?

If by supposed to be, then yes. I think all of those we know of are. That why it is a Web Identity, not an SMTP identity
for example.

> Is a WebID verifier supposed to be able to leverage HTTP content negotiation?

We are just discussing that. I am in favour, but the point is to look at the security issues if any.

> 
> Right now, WebID verifiers are very inconsistent re. the above, thus I encourage we bring clarity to this very important manner.

Which ones are inconsistent?

> 
> Remember, if we are going to tout WebID as leveraging Web Architecture, we have to actually comply with said architecture.

I don't see that we are not. What in the spec is not compliant with web architecture?

Henry
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 16:28:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 December 2011 16:28:27 GMT