W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

spec update -- was: FOAF SSL success, form windows RDFa (via linked data)

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:48:19 +0100
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <BF379F24-201A-4C14-BCFD-BE146136BB1B@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
I brought out a lot more clearly the reference to SWBP-VOCAB-PUB in the text, and made the reasons for the selection of the formats clearer. 

diff here: 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/rev/6f80a7114ec6

--
The protocol does not depend on any particular serialisation of the graph, provided that agents are able to parse that serialisation and obtain the graph automatically. Technologies such as GRDDL [GRDDL-PRIMER] for example permit any XML format to be transformed automatically to a graph of relations. HTTP Content Negotiation can be employed to aid in publication and discovery of multiple distinct serialisations of the same graph at the same URL, as explained by the working group note Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies [SWBP-VOCAB-PUB]

For reasons of interoperability, in order not to overburden the implementation and testing work of WebID Verifiers, and in order to provide a seamless experience for end users, of the many formats that can be publish at one location, it is established that at present publishers should publish their documents in at least one of RDFa [XHTML-RDFA] or TURTLE [TURTLE] as these must be understood by Verification Agents. If other formats grow in popularity, are implemented by verifiers, and gain community acceptance, these can be added to the list.
Irrespective of whether content negotiation can or cannot be employed, if an HTML representation of the WebID profile is published, it is suggested that the provider uses the HTML <link> element to allow discovery of the various alternate representations of the graph which may be available:


On 10 Jan 2012, at 11:35, Henry Story wrote:

> 
> On 10 Jan 2012, at 03:59, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> For the publisher:
>> How do they publish using slash style of HTTP URI, for instance? 
> 
> That is explained in the the document we refer to 
> 
> HTTP Content Negotiation [SWBP-VOCAB-PUB] can be employed to aid in publication and discovery of multiple distinct serialisations of the same graph at the same URL.
> 
> [SWBP-VOCAB-PUB]
> Jon Phipps; Diego Berrueta. Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF Vocabularies. 28 August 2008. W3C Note. URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-swbp-vocab-pub-20080828
> 
> Ok, so perhaps we should bring this out more clearly in the text, as it is perhaps  a lot more hidden than I had realised.
> 
> 
>> How do they publish using a # style of HTTP URI and not be exposed to the legacy libraries, frameworks etc.. that send fragments over the wire? 
> 
> That is not an issue. That is for the library implementors to fix. 
> 
>> How do they obtain and control HTTP URI based Names? 
> 
> I don't think that this is something the spec needs to address. There are many introductory books on how to do that, and many other specs to look that up.
> 
>> You are glossing over some serious pragmatic challenges!
> 
> You are exaggerating, clearly. But thanks for - unintentionally - making me realise that the reference to the Best Practices document was a bit hidden.
> 
> Henry
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 12:56:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 January 2012 12:56:53 GMT