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

Re: Important Question re. WebID Verifiers & Linked Data

From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:57:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD_aa-_waOR3DfwfFz+XxoLKYbD8_F15HU21-Pgs2auo8UZi_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
OK, that seems manageable, assuming it all specs out.

So looking at the 12 December 2012 draft (
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#in-portable-contacts-format-using-grddl
), it looks like (2) RDFa and (4) RDF/XML are in the draft, but (1)
HTML+Microdata and (3) Turtle are not.

In particular the two most relevant sections look to be:

========
3.2.4.1 Processing the WebID Profile

The Verification Agent must be able to process documents in RDF/XML
[RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and RDFa in XHTML [XHTML-RDFA]. The result of
this processing should be a graph of RDF relations that is queryable,
as explained in the next section.
========

How should that read instead?

And then the profile description section itself (
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#the-webid-profile ) lists
some "should", "must", and "not required"

========
foaf:mbox

foaf:name

foaf:depiction

cert:RSAPublicKey

cert:key
========

Clearly (to me) Turtle can handle these. So maybe nothing more has to
be said about that but to list Turtle as an option.

I know almost nothing about HTML+Microdata. My basic understanding is
that the "itemtype" attribute would be required to indicate some
values are foaf:mbox's, cert:key's, etc. Are there any representation
issues or pieces missing in the Microdata draft necessary to have
Microdata be unambiguously supported in the WebID spec?

Are you (Kingsley) driving the inclusion of Microdata in the WebID spec?

Thanks
-Patrick


On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/11 8:08 AM, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The WebID spec can require or suggest a number of common formats for
>>>> eav/spo triple transmission as the basis for effective bootstrap.
>>
>> Agreed. What should that list be at this point in time?
>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>>
>
> 1. HTML + Microdata
> 2. XHTML + RDFa
> 3. Turtle
> 4. RDF/XML .
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 14:57:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 December 2011 14:57:58 GMT