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

The Format Game -- Re: Important Question re. WebID Verifiers & Linked Data

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:31:08 +0100
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <7F0A5AA1-7699-4AB0-8E0B-0AFFF4B63F2A@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 22 Dec 2011, at 19:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> 
>>> Turtle should have equal standing with RDF/XML.
>>> Microdata should have equal standing with RDFa.
>>> 
>>> If the WebID spec cannot do this, then I will tell you now, its going nowhere fast!
>> Itís nothing to do with ďcannot do thisĒ, because with the wording I proposed itís very open-ended. Indeed itís very simple. You are proposing that:
>> 
>> - Turtle should be added to the list of data formats which consumers MUST support
>> 
>> - Microdata should be added to the list of data formats which consumers MUST support
>> 
>> There, we have two straightforward issues, one of which already exists ó having managed to tease it out of an equally arduous thread.  I honestly donít understand why raising these involves these epic essays; itís a waste of everybodyís time and bandwidth.
> 
> I don't believe in essays re. these matters. I've made these points repeatedly in the past. What I observe is a degree of cognitive dissonance in a lot of Henry's push back comments. Yesterday was a classic example, instead of looking at his code, his gut reaction was to start pushing URI style specificity i.e., doing modulo slash URIs due to 303 indirection etc..

I was just using an opportunity to see if we could understand issues with regard to redirect security. I was hoping we would get a good discussion on that so that we can make clear if there are any issues. That is what at some point we will be asked to do. But clearly at present people who make security claims don't seem to care to come up with  scenarios that could help us think through these issues.

Still redirect security ISSUE 64 is up there on our list. So I was not "pushing back" I was trying to explore a security concern. If we don't do it, someone else will and with a lot less kindness.

---------------

I think we should try to be more factual with statements and work things through perhaps with less heat. 
It is really nice to have a bit of discussion after this list was so quiet for a while. But I think if we can get actions then we will get further.

For example I always supported since the beginning redirects, RDF/XML, turtle, and for 2 years rdfa in my WebID implementations. We restricted the spec to help people participate, and mostly not to frighten people reading the spec. I put GRDDL up on the spec to make open things up so that other formats could participate.  But have we had any participation from those groups: no.

So Microdata is not a bad idea if it is well designed and clearly interpretable. I propose the following. Those who like the format, get together implement it, discuss it, write tricks and helpful comments up on the wiki, help us work out what libraries exist, etc... This is what we did for all the other formats and problems we came across, btw. Hey if I see people with webid servers doing this right, I'll get into the game too. Then we add it to the spec. In the end interoperable implementations win.

I suggest to open a serrate micro data thread

Henry

> 
> I react strongly to Henry's comments because I've known him for a long time. Thus, when I find contradictions in his comments I challenge him. Just as he would I under the same circumstances, which is all good.

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 19:31:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 December 2011 19:31:53 GMT