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

Re: WebID-ISSUE-7 (bblfish): Move esw wiki contents? [WebID wiki]

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 00:47:17 +0100
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <BE17AE67-D8EB-42F1-9B68-41D4567AD231@bblfish.net>
To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>

On 29 Jan 2011, at 21:04, Peter Williams wrote:

> Not sure I like:

(( In the future for specific problems with the wiki, please start a new e-mail thread, so 
we can track issues one by one, and not in one large thread that is going to be infinitely 
long. That avoids discussions overlapping too. Also it is best to have one issue per
thread as far as possible. Thanks. ))

I'll interpret your post here as far as it is relevant to this thread, ie our relation to the

>  "A Web ID looks similar to a home page URL, but it specifically identifies Entity You of Type: Person. Typically, the definition of Type: Person,comes from a vocabulary or ontology or data dictionary. One such vocabulary is FOAF, which is the basis of this effort." on the webid page.

My opinion is that this is lax writing trying to speak to a particular audience. First of all 
a WebID identifies an Agent, so it can identify people, dogs, extraterrestrials,
robots, and companies too. 

Different audiences need different levels of introduction. This is a more of an lighthearted 
introduction, that may fail for being a bit too technical. It certainly has not had a lot of 
careful editing. 

There is a lot more one can do there to improve it.

> What I really liked about the use of RDFa in the FOAF+SSL pre-incubator world was that the good ol' home page could easily be foaf card, and thus the home page URI is a webid stem. To the average punter (who will rarely understand the significance of #tag on the end), the home page URI is a webid.

So your issue here is not with the wiki but with # URLs or with useability, right? 
I'll open another thread to answer that.

> The is no way in a million years I'll get even 2 realtors to ever use the foaf-generator sites and tools listed on the wiki. Getting them to add a paragraph of special html markup interspersed with normal paragraph form...is quite  feasible. Its a template, and we can give it to them.

If I take this as a criticism of the wiki, and so on track of this thread, then I'd have
to see this as a reference and criticism of http://esw.w3.org/Foaf%2Bssl/HOWTO
The RDFa examples on the HOWTO page are out of date and need updating. So does the text need
improving? Certainly. The spec is already much better at that. For those things it may be 
better in fact to remove the text from the wiki, and really concentrate more on improving 
the spec. 

So my conclusion:

Where possible if we can do something in the spec, we should concentrate on that,
so that we can focus on quality.  The wiki was a way to get to the spec. Once we 
have the spec, it may be a way to help people with other levels of issues. 


Social Web Architect
Received on Saturday, 29 January 2011 23:47:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:21 UTC