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

Re: Normative vs Informative

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:01:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4ED42EDE.7040001@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 11/28/11 7:43 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>
> > I haven't expressed a philosophical position about anything. Of course,
> > you are 100% entitle to your subjective opinions.
>
> No?
>
> > Again, please perform a modicum of research before jumping to
> > conclusion. At least do that. I does help when you have a rich context
> > en route to jumping to conclusions.
>
> I saw your e-mail, I responded to it. The only conclusions I drew were 
> based on what I've seen. You send a lot of e-mail to the list, and 
> it's entirely likely that I missed some. I picked up on the most 
> recent thread.
>
> > 1. Submit an ISSUE along the lines of "Support for HTML+Microdata
> > profiles as part of WebID would be advantageous", so that there can be
> > formal debate (on merit) and vote on it (my take? if we're doing RDFa
> > 1.1, I can't think of a good reason why not, the below notwithstanding)
> >
> > 2. Spec how a WebID profile graph would look serialised in terms of
> > Microdata
> >
>
> > Again, as per my comment re. research. You should have seen that I sent
> > a Microdata example over the weekend. I didn't just send a Microdata
> > example I sent an example two graphs, one in html+microdata form and the
> > other in xhtml+rdfa.
>
> Excellent. Now it needs to be turned into something which fits with 
> the spec, don't you agree?
>

Yes, but all that needs to be in the spec is this: XHTML+RDFa, RDF/XML, 
and HTML+Microdata. The example was dropped over the weekend. SPARQL 
Query URLs showing effect also dropped.

What is there to spec? What's been spec'd re. XHTML+RDFa or RDF/XML that 
goes beyond what I dropped over the weekend?

I'll get to the "dangerous tendencies further down.."

> But also *the other points*, because they are really really important 
> if you want WebID applications to handle Microdata profiles.
>
> > I have nothing more to add since you clearly believe:
>
> > 1. I haven't implemented anything
>
> Not in the slightest bit true; I simply stated the four things which, 
> as far as I can see, need to happen for you to achieve what you're 
> saying you want to, and indicated that your demands are not 
> representative of everybody wishing to implement WebID.
>

How have you arrived at this conclusion re. folks seeking to implement 
WebID? How many people are you talking about?

>
> > 2. I have nothing better to do with my time than curb Henry's dangerous
> > tendencies re. making WebID more inclusive and accomodating.
>
> Complaining about "Henry's dangerous tendencies" is not constructive 
> and is most definitely philosophical ranting. Please cease.
>

No I will not cease to respond to Henry stepping over the line. How come 
you never interjected when he berated Peter who was simply tying to 
bring some pragmatic realities to his attention, in "devil's advocate 
mode?"

Henry berated Harry Haplin for playing the FUD game re. WebID on the 
basis of Harry referring to a security concern about WebID modulo 
specific details. Then Henry turns around and does exactly the same 
thing when I showcase a WebID solution that builds a bridge to Web 2.0 
spaces like Twitter etc..

Bias is a horrible thing. I shows up quite blatantly.

>
> > If WebID was about Henry, I would have kissed it goodbye this weekend.
> > And certainly after this post. Unfortunately, as I've stated repeatedly,
> > it isn't about Henry or I. It's about solving a serious problem by
> > leveraging the in-built architecture of the World Wide Web where RDF is
> > an option.
>
> Enough with the "leveraging architecture" waffle.
>

So to you the following == waffle:

1. identity data object with de-referencable URIs
2. provide useful information in the form of object descriptions via 
EAV/SPO based graphs
3. reference other things via URIs.

Ah! It stops being waffle if I say:
1. identity data object with de-referencable URIs
2. provide useful information in the form of object descriptions via 
EAV/SPO based graphs
3. Use standards: RDF and SPARQL
4. reference other things via URIs.

RDF is the standard for what exactly? Please really think before 
responding since RDF is not what you might hope it is should you follow 
its on specs and abstract syntax. As I've told you already, RDF passes 
(just about) as an option for implementing Linked Data graphs, so 
conflating RDF and Linked Data is flawed. They are not the same thing. 
You can make Linked Data if you use RDF in a specific way. The key to 
Linked Data lies in the behavior of de-referencable URIs. That gem comes 
from the architecture of the world wide web itself!

> PLEASE. Focus on the _technical issues_.
>

I guess explaining how hyperlinks deliver de-reference and address-of 
operations at InterWeb scale == waffle, right? Ditto when you 
intermingle that with a Linked Data structure (which is a skill moderate 
programmers posses outside the Web realm).

> The above paragraph is entirely representative of all of the things 
> I've been talking about which are simply not helpful in us *all* 
> getting what we want out of WebID.
>

I guess the same applies to my reply above.

>
> > I am moving on, you'll come to understand my concerns in due course,
> > that I am 100% certain about.
>
> Be 100% certain all you like, but I think you'll find you don't speak 
> for my interests.
>

Clearly, and you weren't my target. Remember, you sought to have WebID 
tightly scoped to RDF/XML. You even prefer RDF/XML over HTML based 
object descriptors. You just cannot be my target. That said, you aren't 
representative re. WebID boostrap profile. The target profile I have in 
mind is the Web 2.0 developer.

> Nobody asked you to "move on" --- in fact, nobody asked you to do 
> anything but drop the rhetoric.
>
> > BTW -- can I have some links to WebID compliant stuff you've 
> implemented?
>
> If I had links to share I would've already --- what I have isn't 
> public (because it's tied into other applications), and certainly 
> isn't stable (the latter in part because it's been waiting on solid 
> specifications). Does that somehow make the points I'm making irrelevant?
>

By your own standards, somewhat .

Kingsley
>
>
> M.
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
> stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this. 


-- 

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 Tuesday, 29 November 2011 01:01:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 November 2011 01:01:49 GMT