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

Re: Testing Webid

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:53:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4F13048F.5030008@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/14/12 6:30 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2012, at 22:41, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/12 12:06 PM, Jürgen Jakobitsch wrote:
>>> hi melvin,
>>>
>>> thanks for taking the time...
>>>
>>> i mis-judged from this doc [1] that the content-type "application/xhtml+xml" is a must for rdfa to be valid.
>>> but i just found this statement here [2] which i overlooked when last "fixed" the rdfa parser.
>>>
>>> a text/html tolerant rdfa parser is now online @ https://webid.turnguard.com:8443/WebIDTestServer/
>>>
>>> wkr http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#docconf (at the bottom of the paragraph : "XHTML+RDFa documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]."
>> Jurgen,
>>
>> You continue to highlight critical points in this whole after. #2 above is a gem!
>>
>> RDFa is mercurial in text/html space, you continue to demonstrate yet another issue that's being left in an ambiguous state with poor end-users and plumbers to find out the hard way
> How is this a bigger issue than when OpenLink Virtuoso extends what it accepts as hexBinary as you just explained in your recent e-mail to this list?
>
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2012Jan/0598.html
>
> If it makes sense to extend hexBinary the way you do following the principle "be lenient in what you accept and strict in what you produce" - and I think you really have a good point there - then it makes sense to accept text/html and use a flexible html parser instead of a stricter RDFa one too, right?

Yes, if you are ready to do the work. The trouble with the principle I 
espouse is that it requires a lot more work than most developers are 
ready to put it. For instance, we have done the work (eons ago) re. 
handling RDFa in text/html (esp. with showcased by our handling 
publishers of GoodRelations based offers embedded in HTML), and from 
that work we've also experienced (first hand) all the pain associated 
with using text/html with RDFa (which is xhtml).

To be more specific about your point, the answer is a resounding yes, if 
a developer can do the work and maintain the code etc.

Also note, the same principle applies to "choice" as in treating: 
Microformats, Microdata, and RDFa as options for embedding "mirrored 
claims" graphs in HTML. As I've stated repeatedly, there's no excuse for 
this matter to be prolonged since it only has adverse effects on WebID 
with regards to consumer/commodity publishers that want to leverage "cut 
and paste" oriented workflows re. publication of HTML based info cards 
mirroring claims held in local key stores, in line with the WebID 
verification protocol.

>
>
>
>> Anyway, I have Microdata and Microformats added to the mix re. WebID. These two options are going to be natural for the HTML oriented Web Developer seeking to exploit WebID.
>>
>> Also note, the spec current says:
>>
>> 1. de-reference URI
>>
>> 2. transform payload to RDF -- so a verifier can download an HTML with Microdata or Microformats as mechanism for structured data island (the claims graph inside HTML) and then transform to RDF prior to performing WebID lookup; this is what we do in our verifier and I encourage you (and others) to consider doing similar.

Also note my comments above, subtle but very important re., clarity . As 
the spec stands it's compatible with the notion of Microformats, 
Microdata, and RDFa as options, mechanically (since verifiers have to 
transform payload to RDF), so not giving them equal status in the spec 
adds confusion.

HTML is going to be the preferred format for publishing claims mirrors, 
so why not have the spec accept the 3 options that best serve this 
approach.


Kingsley
>>
>> Kingsley
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Melvin Carvalho"<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> To: "WebID XG"<public-xg-webid@w3.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:59:01 PM
>>> Subject: Testing Webid
>>>
>>> Test WebIDs
>>>
>>> http://melvincarvalho.com/#me
>>>
>>> 1 PASS
>>> http://id.myopenlink.net/ods/webid_demo.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2 FAIL
>>> https://webid.turnguard.com:8443/WebIDTestServer/
>>> Message : Content-Type : text/html is not supported
>>>
>>>
>>> 3 FAIL
>>> https://resourceme.bergnet.org
>>> Not all public keys are well formed
>>> Outcome 	http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#failed
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. PASS
>>> http://webid.fcns.eu/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. PASS
>>> https://foafssl.org/test/WebId
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6 PASS
>>> http://data.fm/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note
>>> We also tried with timbl's webid : http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i
>>> #1 worked, #2 and #3 failed
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>


-- 

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 Sunday, 15 January 2012 16:54:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 15 January 2012 16:54:40 GMT