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: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:15:33 +0100
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <D5EE4C85-7E42-4EE9-A741-3446A766372E@bblfish.net>
To: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Thanks Patrick for exploring this. Some further pointers. 
An issue open for Microdata 

  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/66

All of our implementations support rdfa and rdf/xml. So going on what is 
currently implemented the spec is correct. 

We also have a wiki page that converse the different formats
  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_by_examples

I wonder if the linked data crowd would prefer turtle support over 
rdf/xml by now.

My own prejudice is that RDFa looks pretty good now. Especially RDFa 1.1.

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Dec/0057.html

And has been worked through carefully.

	Henry

On 22 Dec 2011, at 15:57, Patrick Logan wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 15:16:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 December 2011 15:16:09 GMT