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

Re: implementors first impression notes on the spec

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:16:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4EC676D5.8020705@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 11/18/11 6:25 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> The term REST does not appear, and RESTfull web applications are not 
>> specifically included or excluded.
>
> REST is implied by the method of dereferencing the URIs. That is 
> pretty much all that is needed.

+ content negotiation + caching  all centered on URI in SAN.

Orthogonally, I still encourage you to look to Linked Data graph as the 
key foundation where you currently refer to RDF. RDF as moniker for an 
EAV model + URIs is eternally problematic. Less so when RDF is 
positioned as a family of syntaxes and serialization formats for Linked 
Data graphs.

As you are already doing re. client-server, lets build bridges to broad 
audiences via terminology choices. EAV is the model, URIs the data 
identity and access mechanism, and triples (3-tuples) for data 
representation.

JSON-LD eventually got to this point. I also think we can do the same 
re. WebID. There is a clumsy overreach aspect to the letters R-D-F 
that's low hanging fruit for political FUD and bootstrap inertia. We 
don't want inertia since we collectively want WebIDs to go viral.



-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  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 Friday, 18 November 2011 15:17:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 November 2011 15:17:05 GMT